Officially charged.
First degree murder after deliberation.
http://kdvr.com/2018/06/07/uber-driv...d-with-murder/
Printable View
Officially charged.
First degree murder after deliberation.
http://kdvr.com/2018/06/07/uber-driv...d-with-murder/
With deliberation sounds interesting. Must have continued shooting once safely out of car.
Hrm. Prosecutorial overreach? Think they swung too far and will result in a not guilty?
Only going off what I have read and what I have seen in interviews with his wife, but it seems like the guy was a solid dude. Good father, student, good with the community kids. This will be an interesting case to follow.
im refering to the guy in jail, not the one who was shot.
I guess the big lesson here is that if you are going to drive for Uber and carry a gun, you should have a camera recording every trip.
The deliberation part would mean that he committed the murder after taking the act into consideration. So 1st degree would also mean that he planned this crime and it was not an impulsive attack nor an attack in self defense. Interesting, the DA thinks they have evidence to show that he knowingly planned to take the victims life after also thinking about and considering the outcome?
I really do hope that there is truly some evidence of a crime and this is not simply a case of "let's make an example out of this guy" because he wasn't supposed to have a gun. I wonder if Uber has also been putting pressure on the DA to prosecute and give their "policy" some teeth.
Will CCW insurance groups cover such an instance as employer policy against firearms?
Employer policy is not law, so I'd like to think so, but you never know.
Is there such a thing as post facto trespassing charge due to CCW at work? I'd think if it was "during the commission of a criminal activity (trespassing)" they wouldn't. But of course there would be no actual trespassing unless thrown retroactively?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
That's outside my lane, but generally the conversation around liability is along the lines of "what did our insured do wrong?" If the answer is "nothing, up until someone wanted to apply something after the fact..." then that's a tough argument to deny coverage. That's just my opinion though.
Curioser and curiouser.
I'm starting to wonder if that is what got him in trouble. IF he had a camera and he said something before the incident....Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
ie: "Hey fucker, do that again and I'll kill you"
Do you think the Uber charged dead guys' fare?
During Uber employment (on shift), is a driver's car considered Uber "property" in any capacity?
The drivers are all independent contractors so no.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
If you work for a company that has conditions that CCW is not allowed, and you agree to those conditions, you're likely out of a job if it's known that you violated those conditions. You're not breaking the law, but you are breaking the conditional employment agreement.
Some will argue that you can get another job if you use a gun for self-defense, but you can't get another life. In this case, the Uber driver is still in a fight for his life...and he's likely all alone in that fight.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Curious what the "after deliberation" entails.
Interesting how two different stations prioritize the same autopsy report information...
Channel 9 KUSA-
Quote:
Uber passenger killed on I-25 had blood alcohol level nearly 4 times legal limit
https://www.9news.com/article/news/l...t/73-578719301
Channel 7 KMGH-
Quote:
Autopsy report: Man allegedly killed by Denver Uber driver was shot 6 times
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...s-shot-6-times
That is an interesting difference in headlines.
A rider being under the influence and using a service like Uber is pretty typical. Not sure how that can be addressed because it's kind of the entire point in a city like Denver.
The driver (Hancock) can probably use whatever x legal limit or influence/intoxication, but pax wasn't driving or operating motors.
Does driver have any bruises or scratches?
This whole case seems like them trying to make an example out of the driver.
I just got done using about 15 uber drivers in vegas for the last 5 days and have a hard time believing that an Uber driver would premeditate killing a passenger for no reason.
One of the recent posted links says there was a gun shot to the side of his back and saying that's "problematic". I just don't see that when you have a moving attacker. I'm wondering if its because he fired ten shots and hit him 6 times? I guess only the police get to dump mags into suspects and not citizens?
You called it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
https://www.9news.com/mobile/article...6-8aa525c8aa1e
Lovely...
Quote:
Corboy & Demetrio, the attorney that represents the family of Kim, said they plan to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Uber.
"The fact remains that the shooting could have been prevented if Uber had enforced one of its cardinal rules: Drivers are not allowed to have a gun in the car,? said Corboy & Demetrio Partner Francis Patrick Murphy. ?Hancock routinely violated this rule and Uber failed to enforce its policy."
So the victim should have been unarmed and the perp's assault gone unimpeded?
That's the agenda. Take away the guns, the knives, the fists, the fingernails, any means of self-defense. Create full dependency on the governmental authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
I am tempted to call and give an earful to the Chicago based office of Corboy and Demetrio.
What the hell..Quote:
Prosecutors told jurors that the evidence didn't back up Hancock's self-defense claim, including that he didn't suffer any serious injuries. They also pointed out that Hancock admitted to putting his knife in Kim's hands after shooting him.
re knife: Probably a momentary freak out based on the idea of needing to prove to others the reality of the self-defense situation in which he had very recently found himself, and then a realization of the stupidity of that being found out.
That would be my guess on this. The fact that he didn?t go thru with it I think even more points that it was a legit shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
Why does 10 rounds sound extreme? I think we've all seen videos of drugged up bad guys taking a full magazine because they didn't know they were dead. Do you stop firing even when the danger persists and you still have ammunition just because the total shots fired "sounds extreme"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_K
They are hoping for a settlement. If the description is correct, I'm betting it's a 12(b) dismissal instead and they have an automatic judgment against them for attorney fees.
I don't think there's really a tort for "the company wasn't frisking their individual contractors before they got in their individually owned cars to see if they had guns in violation of the clearly defined uber policy to not have guns"
Remember, people can institute any suit they want, even frivolous and invalid ones. It's your responsibility to ask the court to dismiss it and cite appropriate precedence and rules to do so.
ETA: For instance, they are probably going to do a claim for negligence, which has clear burdens. Their problem is they can't plead a valid "duty of care" which is a component of the claim; e.g. they can't credibly plead that Uber had any legal responsibility to proactively enforce such terms in their contract. (e.g. frisk drivers before every job)
Hancock also testified that he was trying to shoot low since he only wanted to stop the attack and didn't want to kill his attacker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter