I feel like this it just one assault away from hurting Uber's brand big time.
The horse has sort of bolted on this one http://www.autostraddle.com/raped-by-an-uber-cab-driver-horr...
Uber Partners and Drivers
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#12I feel like this it just one assault away from hurting Uber's brand big time.
In any case, I thought Uber's 'difference' was the professional black car/limo drivers. Judging by this page, they're now signing up randoms who are behind on the payments on their 09 Hyundai. As a former driver, that's a huge leap in my mind.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#13I feel like this it just one assault away from hurting Uber's brand big time.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#14What do they even do? I had to go to their normal homepage to get a vague idea. They have a brand saying pretty much nothing.
This seems like a company prime for a future identity-crisis.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The horse has sort of bolted on this one http://www.autostraddle.com/raped-by-an-uber-cab-driver-horr...
This article is terrible. There is no "rape", no "rapist", and no "survivor" until a trial has been conducted. Until then, there is only an "accuser" and an "accused". The article also links to a report that only 54% of rapes are reported to the police. Until there has been a trial, there is no way to know if there has been a rape. What they mean is that 54% of people who claim rape do not report it to the police. I…
The story itself sounds highly questionable. Even in the same blog post, the details are inconsistent (did she walk back to the cab of her own volition, or was she called?) Where was this jacket and why would she think she "might" have left it in the cab? Why would the driver wait until she left and returned to attack her? Why would an uber driver, in full knowledge that they are emphatically on record as having picked up and dropped off a person, basically lock themselves in prison and throw away the key by committing such a crime? Why would they then carry the victim's body onto the property!?
Seeing that the police have questioned the driver and not charged him, a more likely explanation might be: Deeply intoxicated underage drinker brought home by uber driver, wrongly believes she left something in cab, falls over and hits her head walking back to it, driver carries her back onto her property, she makes something up the next morning to explain things to her parents. Wouldn't be the first time.
Anyway, none of these reasonable objections slow the site down in whipping itself up into a self-righteous fervour as they declare the driver guilty and lament the "survivor" "will not see and has not seen justice in any real sense of the word".
Oops, there I go engaging in "wildly misogynistic and rape-apologetic discussion" again!
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#16What's up with the name? Uber? Is it supposed to be Über? And if so, how does that even make sense? What do they even do ? I had to go to their normal homepage to get a vague idea. They have a brand saying pretty much nothing. This seems like a company prime for a future identity-crisis.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is terrible. There is no "rape", no "rapist", and no "survivor" until a trial has been conducted. Until then, there is only an "accuser" and an "accused". The article also links to a report that only 54% of rapes are reported to the police. Until there has been a trial, there is no way to know if there has been a rape. What they mean is that 54% of people who claim rape do not report it to the police. I…
Yeah, that is a shocking article. The site seems to be a hardcore feminist outrage blog with a strong prejudice to what they perceive, wrongly, to be the female interest. Even the use of the word "survivor" at all is highly objectionable, being a subtle attempt to raise the stakes, as if rape and attempted murder are synonymous. The story itself sounds highly questionable. Even in the same blog post, the details are…
Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal case, until the trial is complete.
If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the state or the Crown) says person B did something, person B says that person A is falsely accusing them of doing something. There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact.
Every criminal case should be simultaneously a false accusation case.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#18What's up with the name? Uber? Is it supposed to be Über? And if so, how does that even make sense? What do they even do ? I had to go to their normal homepage to get a vague idea. They have a brand saying pretty much nothing. This seems like a company prime for a future identity-crisis.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that is a shocking article. The site seems to be a hardcore feminist outrage blog with a strong prejudice to what they perceive, wrongly, to be the female interest. Even the use of the word "survivor" at all is highly objectionable, being a subtle attempt to raise the stakes, as if rape and attempted murder are synonymous. The story itself sounds highly questionable. Even in the same blog post, the details are…
It's not even about whether the evidence as we know it is convincing. Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal case, until the trial is complete. If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the s…
But that already exists -- it's called civil law. Contrast with criminal law:
In criminal law, the state has an interest and brings charges against a defendant, the sides are called "prosecution" and "defense", the standard for judgment is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the outcomes include incarceration and (in some countries) execution.
In civil law, the state has no interest, the offenses aren't called crimes, the two sides have equal standing and are called "petitioner" and "respondent" (the names change in different locales), the standard for judgment is "preponderance of evidence", and the outcome is usually a monetary payment. Incarceration isn't possible.
> There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact.
This already exists, but it's not suitable for all cases. Any time the state has an interest, the rules change, and the word "crime" begins to be heard.
Re: Uber Partners and Drivers
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even about whether the evidence as we know it is convincing. Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal case, until the trial is complete. If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the s…
> If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room ... But that already exists -- it's called civil law. Contrast with criminal law: In criminal law, the state has an interest and brings charges against a defendant, the sides are called "prosecution" and "defense", the standard for judgment is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the outcomes include incarcera…
If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If Bob denies it then automatically an opposite trial of false accusation runs at the same time. If Sarah has evidence that Bob raped her, perhaps the testimony of police detectives, Bob looses both cases and goes to prison. If there's not enough evidence, both sides loose. If it becomes clear that Bob definitely did not rape her, Sarah looses both cases, including the false accusation case, and goes to prison.
At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one.
In the case of murder, or treason, or grafatti of public property or whatever, it would be the state accusing. If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.