Men Harassed A Woman In A Driverless Waymo, Trapping Her In Traffic

I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn't even carrying cash is anyone's idea of a good payoff.

idk i think plenty of people carry expensive stuff on them
what a thief could actually get for them is another matter but clearly that doesnt stop them from trying
- This is where you carry a window spike and smash and grab. Why make it so much more complicated?
- The doors aren't going to open from the outside, and authorities would be alerted immediately. Breaking the glass on a car window or holding people up at gun point... Yeah. Easier in the parking lot of any gas station, grocery store, neighborhood, Walmart, Mall, Jewelry store, movie theater. Wherever really. The people can get out of the car in an emergency just like any other car. Running someone down with a car is not the answer to many situations.
  
  Affluent people taking a driverless car from the shopping district would absolutely be targets.
  Put yourself in a drug addicts shoes, or just a thief's shoes. How would you make this work?
  It doesnt take much creativity, and the people who would do this type of thing are not known to be short on creativity.
  
  So you think they were in life threatenng danger?
  
  In this example? We know they weren't, but not until they left.

Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it

Or a Delamain.

My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.

It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.

Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.

Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.

This is the seatbelt argument all over again. The safety features protect people in the majority of scenarios. While there may be scenarios where it does more harm than good, they are rare. You’re much safer with the safety feature.
- I don't think there is a car where the seat belt is tied to anything besides a little notification beep. Seems like a different situation if the "safety" feature dictates how the car is used.
  
  Seatbelts are legally mandated. When that was going through, some people argued against that requirement on the grounds that there edge cases where it dies more harm than good.
  Just like the case here, those edge cases are vanishingly rare.
  Note: my car won’t move without a seatbelt, but it’s an EV so furthers the argument that EVs are taking control from the driver.
  
  Fair point then about the arguement around safety. For me the bigger issue is control. Cars with kill switches and conditions to use is a slippery slope. Just look at what's happened with software and media. Don't want to have to pirate my car or load custom firmware so I can use it as I want.
You don't complain about having to open your door or start the engine when escaping a threat.
Having to unplug a cable during a very specific, imagined threat seems like a niche problem.
- Additionally: if you're at a gas station filling an ICE vehicle and you get mugged, and you panic and peel out, there's gas going everywhere, plenty of potential ignition sources etc.
  The argument "I have more control and agency therefore I am quantifiably safer" can fuck alllllll the way off. Safety regulations are written in blood.
- The difference being that not being able to start the motor with the door open is only a problem if the driver was being attacked in a parking lot.
  It's not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in. Now the car is immobilized. Smash the driver side window and they're in business.
  Sure, there are some safeguards that can be added like requiring a current to immobilize the vehicle, but it's far from the simplest or safest answer. Car manufacturers need to stop putting in hard limits and just use alarms instead. I bought a new Subaru that has collision detection standard. The hedge next to my driveway was overgrown, but I drove right through it. The car sounded an alarm and flashed a bunch of lights, but it didn't engage the brakes, I was able to blast through an obstacle that I knew was minor even though the car thought it was a threat. If a manufacturer feels compelled to add a safety system, it's possible to do so without taking control away from the driver.
  
  It's not too big of a leap
  I think it is. I'd like to see at least one documented case of this happening before people start demanding that cars be able to move while plugged in. Plus, in the very scenario you describe, the car would still be able to move, no? Attaching a charger does nothing unless you're changing to parked at every red light.
  The only time you'd need to drive away while charging is if the attacker walks up while you're sitting in your parked car, or kindly decides to let you get in before doing anything.
  I can't find a single instance of someone being unable to escape because of their charger, so maybe let's worry about it if it ever becomes a problem.
  
  It's not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in.
  Sounds like a lot of hassle. If they want to immoblise a self driving car they just stand in front of it.
  Why carry a plug cut off from a public charger when you can just stab the tyres?
  Use the pry bar to smash the window and open the door. Not open the charging port.
  
  It's about hitting electric cars, self driving or otherwise.
  Cars can still move with punctured tires, at least far enough that a would-be robber or carjacker could get dragged a good distance.
  You smash the window and open the door. Now the panicked driver is speeding away, leaving you high and dry or dragging you along.
  Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal's wet dream. It's incumbent on car manufacturers to consider that while implementing safety features.
  
  Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal's wet dream.
  It's been a reality for over a decade.
  https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
  My point is that plugging in a charging cable is way down the list of attacker tools.
  
  Sure, but it's on the list.
  If it saves even one human life it's worth switching to an alarm instead of immobilization, even if that means hundreds of breakaway cables get snapped by morons driving away from chargers.
  
  What if hundreds of lives are lost due to broken cables snapped by morons driving away from chargers?
  
  How the fuck do you think gas pumps work?
  I'm done feeding the trolls.
  
  So we are agreed. Immobilize vehicles both when they are charging and refuelling.
  
  Gas pumps are something you’re doing “right now”, so you ought to remember. Vs a charging cable s something you plugged in last night and left that way. Much easier to forget.
  You’re very unlikely to change drivers at a gas pump so you probably won’t forget. Vs a charging cable is something your spouse may or may not have plugged in last night, and they’re not necessarily there to remember.
  It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a gas pump with trigger lock. You have to be actively involved with pumping gas, holding it the whole time, so unlikely to forget
  
  How would they open the charge port door? I can still imagine it because I have a good imagination but it’s just not going to happen.
  Is someone really going to go through the trouble of carrying a cut off cable and a piece of electronics to open the charge port, and have time to walk up to the car click to open, wait for the door to open and insert the cable? There are faster and easier ways to immobilize a car, why would anyone make it so complicated?
  And that assumes that safety feature is still engaged when you’re already driving
  
  Pry bar to open the hatch, like I said.
  And yes, today people are walking around with angle grinders to chop off catalytic converters.
  
  Not at a stop light, nor as a way to immobilize you. While they can steal your catalytic converter surprisingly quickly, they’ll look for a minute or two of quiet time to slide under your car.

Did the lady have 5 kids to feed?

She did have 3 boobs.

Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍

Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it's a weird flex to support cars.

In public the group of people watching and in close proximity prevents a lot of crime. Criminals feel shame too and at the very least want to prolong their ability to continue to make money how they do.
A single person in a car is vulnerable simply because they are alone. They think the car protects them but its trivial to smash a window and pull someone out.

Everyone is a criminal

Pretty simple problem to solve, get a conceal carry permit.

When the solution is "Vigilantism" you know the situation is fucked.
- That was in response to being robbed.
  I think the phrase you're looking for is “defending yourself”.
  
  I don't live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don't understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I'm likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
  
  I don’t live in a 3rd world country
  lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it's literally the #1 killer of children.
  which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it's got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
  
  In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
  
  As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a "stable democracy".
  If a poll was done of American citizens asking them "do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?" I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn't sound like a stable democracy to me.
  
  What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
  
  Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It's maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
  Note how I left out theft. That's because you can't directly use violence to protect property.
  
  Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
  I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
  
  Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
  
  Yeah, not here.
  I've had shit stolen. The police "handled it" to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife's side of the family. Fuck thieves.
  
  Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
  
  Agreed thieves are terrible.
  Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
  
  There is a solution, it's called insurance. I know that you wouldn't get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
  I know the other guy wouldn't say it, so I'll go ahead and do it: you sound like you're out for revenge, but you don't know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
  
  you sound like you’re out for revenge
  They've taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They're just out to kill people they think of as less than human.
  
  There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back
  Then it isn't exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It's not about the monetary cost.
  but neither would you being armed but not home.
  Yeah...? I don't get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there's a human there to operate it. No shit...
  You're simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don't solve theft.
  I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
  The state I live in currently wouldn't allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I've lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that's the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
  
  You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
  A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they're trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
  There's a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn't immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
  There's also something to be said about the place you're living in, where you're to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
  
  Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
  
  I don't think I understand your question.
  What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
  
  There's a difference between "violent crime exists" and "violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives."
  
  I've never been in a serious vehicle accident.
  Still wear my seat belt though.
  
  "Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people." Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
  
  It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
  Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
  You've had a variation on this in just about every response. It's getting very old. We get it, US bad.
  
  Was my statement wrong in any way?
  If it's getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
  
  There's a difference between "violent crime exists" and "violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives."
  Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
  I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
  I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
  I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
  Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
  
  I have sympathy for someone who's actually been a victim of violent crime, and it's a shame therapy isn't a more viable option. However, there's a big difference between
  "I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me" and
  "This might lead to robberies."
  "That's what guns are for."
  
  I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
  None of that is "defending yourself".
  
  the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative
  
  Reasonable Force
  Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
  If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
  If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
  https://legaldictionary.net/self-defense/
  
  And you understand that reasonable force varies by state, right? I’ve said it multiple times.
  I will use the maximum allowed for the state I reside in. I have lived in states which allowed for deadly force to protect property.
  
  Yes, you've made it quite clear you are happy to murder "undesirables" on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.
- No, its self defense.
  
  In civilized countries "self defense" means you might have to punch someone. "You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don't know" is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
  
  Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they're ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they're being fired upon.
  That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
  At that point, you're basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
  
  If citizens have a "Constitutional Right" to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
  
  No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
  
  I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
  
  In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone.
  My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I'm not getting into fist fights anymore.
  If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
  
  "Property is more valuable than human lives."
  A statement from a person in a developed country apparently...
  
  "The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak" A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
  
  You're the one touting strength through arms here...
  
  And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can't believe I need to spell this out.
  
  Who is "the stronger" in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
  
  Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I'm quite sure none of them allow it when someone "bothers you".
  
  There's also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
  
  You're talking about things like it's obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
  
  You're expecting me to value people who steal shit.
  And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.
  
  I'm expecting you to not be a fucking enraged ape
  
  Try "A government should take care of its citizens."
  
  I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
  
  People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.
  
  Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
  
  There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I'll just go on explaining as if you actually don't understand.
  The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
  
  What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of "extended" srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
  
  Fascism is so normalized :(
  
  Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
  The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
  
  I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.
Oops now everyone got guns and you get killed by some random. I'm sure judge dredd will save you. Try being more violent, violence solves all problem. It's self defense that mean it's right. Always remember, dead bodies tell no tales. Aim for the center of mass and always empty the mag to make sure there is only your side of the story left.
- Guns are for pussies carry a Dane axe like a respectable person.
  I dont know if this is even a joke on my part.
  
  Carry a large warhammer, like Thor.
  
  I wouldnt call Mjölnir large, girthy is a better term. But you could be mixing it up with Sigmar and Gahl maraz.
  
  Larger than your average claw hammer or ball peen, at least.
  
  It was relatively average for its time, sadly the evolution of the hammer is heavily influenced by neoteny.
- Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.
  
  "What if he has a gun"
  Thieves in your area are now packing, enjoy the upgrade on unpredictable violence
  Try faster violence escalation next for extra spicy neighborhoods
I prefer to reduce demand, instead. Everyday people who feel happy and safe don't feel the need to be violent.
- This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.
  A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.
ah, the American solution
- in a country that has more firearms than people, certainly adding MORE firearms will resolve these issues!
- Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.
  An armed society is a polite society.
  
  Polite society my ass. I've owned guns for over 15 years and never has a gun de-escalated a situation. People who carry in public are way more likely to kill someone and to get themselves killed. Guns cause aggressiveness far more often.
  The woman was never in danger, if she pulled a gun, her, the harrassers, and all other bystanders would have been in danger.
  
  What a disgusting falsehood
  
  I suppose you might get to kill people but that doesn’t mean that the law is going to be ok with that. Proportionality of force is a thing. Stand your ground states are doing their best to change that, but that’s a very mixed bag.
  If you shoot and kill someone for blocking your waymo and being a creep, in most places you are going to have to convince a district attorney and a jury that you were justified in ending their life. Even if you do that and escape criminal liability, you’ll then have to convince more people not to hold you liable in civil court.
  Sounds pretty cool to go “I got a shooty bang bang so if I feel threatened in any way I can come out blasting.” It is true in the moment, but if you place any value on your future liberty, money, and time you might want to consider the ramifications of killing another human being.
  Finally, even if society decides you shouldn’t face any criminal or civil penalty for killing someone, you will have to face yourself. Sitting behind a keyboard it sounds badass to shoot someone that’s pissing you off. In the moment you will probably feel justified. Many a young man sent to war or employed as a police officer didn’t think that taking a life would change them, only to find the reality of taking a life is not what the action movies promised. Self doubt, self loathing, ptsd, depression, these are all common reactions to reckoning with the fact that you are the cause of another persons death.
  It is hard to feel like a righteous badass as you watch a grieving widow mourn someone that may have even done something stupid or wrong, knowing that their child has no father now and their wife no partner. Are these people jerks and creeps, sure, is the punishment for being a jerk or creep death, rarely. It is a heavy burden to carry to end another.
lemmy is full of sissy pacifists but i upvoted you.
- I once had someone get in my face and say, "Are you man enough to fight me?" I responded with "I'm man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems." Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?
  
  Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.
  
  Yes, and the vast majority of scenarios where that is the case is where one party made completely unreasonable demands or turned to violence as the first option.
  
  there aren't always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it's nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn't deal with that truth.
  
  You're correct, there aren't always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.
  
  Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.
  This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.
  
  I'm not sure what your point is. It is completely orthogonal to mine. In the same vein, no, you aren't responsible for other people's choices, and yes, rabid dogs (or people who act like them) are unlikely to listen to reason. Neither of those are good reasons to start fights, and that statement neither says that all fights are avoidable or that one mustn't defend oneself.
- And this is why we have a term called "toxic masculinity".
- How many people have you shot?