7 ms·

Ice-T says he almost shot an Amazon delivery driver 'creeping up to my crib'

30 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

lallysingh 7y ago
> ... Dave Clark, the company's senior vice president of worldwide operations. > > "Just saying... thanks for the suggestion. We MF'ing love you and our drivers," Clark wrote. I was surprised at that part.
- mavsman 7y ago
  Ya is that real? It either sounds like a parody or an out of touch exec trying to sound in touch.
  - mrkstu 7y ago
    Same reaction- really trying much to hard to sound cool.
Dirlewanger 7y ago
He brings up a good point. How can one reliably distinguish between an Amazon drone on-the-clock and some moron's amateur drone snooping around peoples' yards? There just isn't a way right now, and I don't see a better way any time soon. Any way of identification from the ground will most likely add weight, and more weight == higher cost to fly.
- gppk 7y ago
  What's the problem here? If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway? If it's a drone that crashes or causes an issue, then presumably the Amazon drones will be tracked/registered and hobbyists wil llikely have to be conforming to their local laws wrt registration
  - groovybits 7y ago
    > If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway? Are there laws for this? Why would I not be able to remove a drone (or any other foreign object) from my own property?
    - cronix 7y ago
      Yes, it's under FAA jurisdiction and a federal crime. You own the ground. They own the air basically "from the blades of the grass to space." You really don't want to be shooting down aircraft in FAA controlled airspace. It's the equivalent at shooting at an airplane. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confirms-shooting-drone-federal-crime-so-when-will-us-prosecute/#154b0a382a25 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confi...
      - groovybits 7y ago
        I'm finding conflicting information on this. According to the FAA's regulations for commericial aircraft[1], it mentions following the rules for 'Part 107'[2]. According to Part 107, under Operational Limitations: > Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure. Under 400 ft is considered 'Class G' airspace[3]. The FAA labels this as "uncontrolled" airspace, and "This is airspace where the FAA is not controlling manned air traffic."[4] Of course, these drones are unmanned. So do they fall under these regulations? Assuming the drone is under 400 ft (ex: on a front lawn), what am I legally able to do? I'm not sure how most of this stuff works, but it looks like you can also file for an exemption to the rules, which I'm sure someone like Amazon can do. However, from a newbie's perspective, the regulations seems rather confusing. Edit: I do not see any information within these pages that say "I, the resident, cannot take lethal action against an aircraft in the event that the aircraft presents a danger to myself/others" or "... in the event it occupies my property without my consent", which is the case that I believe we are discussing here. 18 USC 32[5] states: > This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. This sounds like sort of a blanket statement, and does not really cover cases such as these. 1: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/ 2: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf 3: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap3_section_3.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... 4: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ 5: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircraft-sabotage-18-usc-32 https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircra...
ggambetta 7y ago
> "Just regular people workin," Ice-T wrote. "I ain't mad at them. Just sayin. That ... ain't safe." You know what else "ain't safe", Ice-T? Defaulting to shooting people you don't recognize!
- js2 7y ago
  If nextdoor has taught me anything, it's that many of my neighbors are deathly afraid of two things: snakes, and people they don't recognize.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  But it's America, where you take personal responsibility for your own safety. The organs of the state are either absent - consider George Zimmermann, his neighbourhood did have a crime problem, so he saw fit to take matters in his own hand - or they are not safe to call. I bet there's a substantial contingent of African-Americans who won't call police because of previous unfavourable interactions, US police have a deplorably low standard of training and discipline. If anyone needs proof for that, look no further than Mohammed Noor or Amber Guyger.
  - pavel_lishin 7y ago
    Using George Zimmerman, a trigger-happy vigilante-wannabe, as your example undermines the point you're trying to make.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Using Zimmerman as his example makes me think he's trying to walk the line between parody and seriousness.
      - pavel_lishin 7y ago
        Poe's Law is a bitch.
    - throwaway99200 7y ago
dontbenebby 7y ago
Good thing he didn't, because even in conservative states merely trespassing isn't enough to allow you to use deadly force. Some states allow you to defend property (shoot someone stealing), or to shoot someone who when told to leave refuses, but nowhere in America can you shoot someone dead simply for crossing your property line.
- michaelt 7y ago
  Presumably, a delivery driver looking for a safe place a parcel can be hidden looks a lot like a package thief looking for a safe place a parcel might be hidden?
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    Did Ice-T say the delivery guy was doing that? I assumed creeping up just meant he was walking toward the house.
- xfitm3 7y ago
  The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, Florida lets you open fire on someone forcibly trying to enter your dwelling -- including your attached porch -- but not the rest of your property (such as a yard).
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >including your attached porch The fact that that's called out specifically tells me someone probably spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer's fees to get this little tidbit that most would consider obvious hammered out in case law.
- mrkstu 7y ago
  Kind of. If the property owner believes that he is preventing/stopping another crime (i.e. burglary/theft/criminal mischief) the homicide would be without criminal consequence to the owner. The criminal mischief (at night only) is a pretty broad category and makes it hard to win a prosecution. A 2015 study found that only 2 of 45 shootings claiming self-defense in Texas were even charged...
sundvor 7y ago
"Only in America", as my friends say.
kstenerud 7y ago
I don't get it... Why would your default impulse when an unknown person approaches your house be to shoot them?
- brazzy 7y ago
  Because the NRA has drilled it into people that "home invasions" by people who want to kill you are an everyday threat you need to be prepared to.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    It happens "somewhere" everyday but the odds of it happening to any given individual are low. That said, we still have smoke/CO detectors and fire extinguishers in our houses and houses burning down is as rare or rarer.
    - brazzy 7y ago
      That is ridiculously wrong. There are about half a million structure fires in the USA per year (source: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-fire https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-fire), compared to about 17,000 murders, of which those committed in the course of a home invasion are most likely a small fraction.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  There's a good chance Ice-T was just made uncomfortable by the stranger approaching his house and used an attention-grabbing way to express it publicly. He may have also felt that this was the sort of thing that would boost his public persona.
  - kstenerud 7y ago
    I... just... I mean... I'm not American, so it's difficult to wrap my head around either of these concepts.
battletested 7y ago
> Amazon Help promised to "be in touch soon" and thanked Ice-T for his feedback. So, Amazon does respond to customers questions, I mean apparently when you're rich and famous.. I am banned for life because I tried to buy something when my credit-card was on its limit without me knowing it. It was a non-issue as I monthly settle any credit-card debt outstanding. But no Amazon for me anymore, no customer support nothing, banned for life, amazing company.
jsiepkes 7y ago
I don't think the problem here is delivery people not being easily identifiable as friendly targets.... Seriously in what kind of world do you live if you even vaguely think you need to shoot at everyone in the vicinity of your house who you can't identify?
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  We are used to see sleeping babies as innocent, but if we approached carelessly to their cribs and scared them, and they were armed, they would shoot at us too.
sxp62000 7y ago
He was joking. He probably got startled.

30 points by LinuxBender 7y ago

> ... Dave Clark, the company's senior vice president of worldwide operations. > > "Just saying... thanks for the suggestion. We MF'ing love you and our drivers," Clark wrote. I was surprised at that part.

mavsman 7y ago
Ya is that real? It either sounds like a parody or an out of touch exec trying to sound in touch.
- mrkstu 7y ago
  Same reaction- really trying much to hard to sound cool.

Dirlewanger 7y ago

He brings up a good point. How can one reliably distinguish between an Amazon drone on-the-clock and some moron's amateur drone snooping around peoples' yards? There just isn't a way right now, and I don't see a better way any time soon. Any way of identification from the ground will most likely add weight, and more weight == higher cost to fly.

gppk 7y ago
What's the problem here? If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway? If it's a drone that crashes or causes an issue, then presumably the Amazon drones will be tracked/registered and hobbyists wil llikely have to be conforming to their local laws wrt registration
- groovybits 7y ago
  > If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway? Are there laws for this? Why would I not be able to remove a drone (or any other foreign object) from my own property?
  - cronix 7y ago
    Yes, it's under FAA jurisdiction and a federal crime. You own the ground. They own the air basically "from the blades of the grass to space." You really don't want to be shooting down aircraft in FAA controlled airspace. It's the equivalent at shooting at an airplane. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confirms-shooting-drone-federal-crime-so-when-will-us-prosecute/#154b0a382a25 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confi...
    - groovybits 7y ago
      I'm finding conflicting information on this. According to the FAA's regulations for commericial aircraft[1], it mentions following the rules for 'Part 107'[2]. According to Part 107, under Operational Limitations: > Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure. Under 400 ft is considered 'Class G' airspace[3]. The FAA labels this as "uncontrolled" airspace, and "This is airspace where the FAA is not controlling manned air traffic."[4] Of course, these drones are unmanned. So do they fall under these regulations? Assuming the drone is under 400 ft (ex: on a front lawn), what am I legally able to do? I'm not sure how most of this stuff works, but it looks like you can also file for an exemption to the rules, which I'm sure someone like Amazon can do. However, from a newbie's perspective, the regulations seems rather confusing. Edit: I do not see any information within these pages that say "I, the resident, cannot take lethal action against an aircraft in the event that the aircraft presents a danger to myself/others" or "... in the event it occupies my property without my consent", which is the case that I believe we are discussing here. 18 USC 32[5] states: > This statute now also makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. This sounds like sort of a blanket statement, and does not really cover cases such as these. 1: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/ 2: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf 3: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap3_section_3.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... 4: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ 5: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircraft-sabotage-18-usc-32 https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircra...

ggambetta 7y ago

> "Just regular people workin," Ice-T wrote. "I ain't mad at them. Just sayin. That ... ain't safe." You know what else "ain't safe", Ice-T? Defaulting to shooting people you don't recognize!

js2 7y ago
If nextdoor has taught me anything, it's that many of my neighbors are deathly afraid of two things: snakes, and people they don't recognize.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
But it's America, where you take personal responsibility for your own safety. The organs of the state are either absent - consider George Zimmermann, his neighbourhood did have a crime problem, so he saw fit to take matters in his own hand - or they are not safe to call. I bet there's a substantial contingent of African-Americans who won't call police because of previous unfavourable interactions, US police have a deplorably low standard of training and discipline. If anyone needs proof for that, look no further than Mohammed Noor or Amber Guyger.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  Using George Zimmerman, a trigger-happy vigilante-wannabe, as your example undermines the point you're trying to make.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Using Zimmerman as his example makes me think he's trying to walk the line between parody and seriousness.
    - pavel_lishin 7y ago
      Poe's Law is a bitch.
  - throwaway99200 7y ago

dontbenebby 7y ago

Good thing he didn't, because even in conservative states merely trespassing isn't enough to allow you to use deadly force. Some states allow you to defend property (shoot someone stealing), or to shoot someone who when told to leave refuses, but nowhere in America can you shoot someone dead simply for crossing your property line.

michaelt 7y ago
Presumably, a delivery driver looking for a safe place a parcel can be hidden looks a lot like a package thief looking for a safe place a parcel might be hidden?
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Did Ice-T say the delivery guy was doing that? I assumed creeping up just meant he was walking toward the house.
xfitm3 7y ago
The law gives property owners the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. That means any force used against a trespasser must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, Florida lets you open fire on someone forcibly trying to enter your dwelling -- including your attached porch -- but not the rest of your property (such as a yard).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >including your attached porch The fact that that's called out specifically tells me someone probably spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyer's fees to get this little tidbit that most would consider obvious hammered out in case law.
mrkstu 7y ago
Kind of. If the property owner believes that he is preventing/stopping another crime (i.e. burglary/theft/criminal mischief) the homicide would be without criminal consequence to the owner. The criminal mischief (at night only) is a pretty broad category and makes it hard to win a prosecution. A 2015 study found that only 2 of 45 shootings claiming self-defense in Texas were even charged...

sundvor 7y ago

"Only in America", as my friends say.

kstenerud 7y ago

I don't get it... Why would your default impulse when an unknown person approaches your house be to shoot them?

brazzy 7y ago
Because the NRA has drilled it into people that "home invasions" by people who want to kill you are an everyday threat you need to be prepared to.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  It happens "somewhere" everyday but the odds of it happening to any given individual are low. That said, we still have smoke/CO detectors and fire extinguishers in our houses and houses burning down is as rare or rarer.
  - brazzy 7y ago
    That is ridiculously wrong. There are about half a million structure fires in the USA per year (source: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-fire https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-fire), compared to about 17,000 murders, of which those committed in the course of a home invasion are most likely a small fraction.
daveFNbuck 7y ago
There's a good chance Ice-T was just made uncomfortable by the stranger approaching his house and used an attention-grabbing way to express it publicly. He may have also felt that this was the sort of thing that would boost his public persona.
- kstenerud 7y ago
  I... just... I mean... I'm not American, so it's difficult to wrap my head around either of these concepts.

battletested 7y ago

> Amazon Help promised to "be in touch soon" and thanked Ice-T for his feedback. So, Amazon does respond to customers questions, I mean apparently when you're rich and famous.. I am banned for life because I tried to buy something when my credit-card was on its limit without me knowing it. It was a non-issue as I monthly settle any credit-card debt outstanding. But no Amazon for me anymore, no customer support nothing, banned for life, amazing company.

jsiepkes 7y ago

I don't think the problem here is delivery people not being easily identifiable as friendly targets.... Seriously in what kind of world do you live if you even vaguely think you need to shoot at everyone in the vicinity of your house who you can't identify?

ASalazarMX 7y ago
We are used to see sleeping babies as innocent, but if we approached carelessly to their cribs and scared them, and they were armed, they would shoot at us too.

sxp62000 7y ago

He was joking. He probably got startled.