650
submitted 2 months ago by some_guy to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago

Yea I'm not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago

If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person

You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.

You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.

[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)

[-] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

What do you mean by "allow you to kill a 3rd party"?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn't actively breaking into your car?

This is something that's going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other's perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to "drive slowly" through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
650 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

60142 readers
3307 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS