Ice-T says he almost shot an Amazon delivery driver 'creeping up to my crib'(lite.cnn.io)
lite.cnn.io
Ice-T says he almost shot an Amazon delivery driver 'creeping up to my crib'
https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_23434a5db8480f34272300e949ac4ee5
52 comments
His reality is not one that (at least I) can understand living a safe and comfortable life in the suburbs. He was associated with crime, gangs, and fame throughout his life. It may be that he is more defensive because he has had (or currently has) people trying to come and kill him. That being said, if I ever need to put a hit out on Ice-T, I will make sure I am wearing an Amazon vest.
We slept near a shotgun in the hood and murder capital I lived in. North Memphis, TN. People would try to steal stuff out the car in the middle of night. You could get jacked on the street, too, so better carry weapons. That said, our default reaction to people coming near our house was to watch them (where they saw us watching them), say hello if they're passing by, ask who they were if they approached, and merely be prepared to act if we had to. Most people that approached were harmless: asking about something (esp directions), trying to bum money off us, sell to us, etc.
Ice-T's reaction sounds like it has something to do with him or the culture of wherever he's from. Gangs like you said with their "it's the jungle mindset." They default to and embrace violence in many situations where it's unnecessary. They push thug culture in Memphis, too, but most people avoid violence where possible. Probably why it went down at some point despite lots of folks having a hard time finding work. I don't know current numbers, though, since I live outside Memphis now.
"That being said, if I ever need to put a hit out on Ice-T, I will make sure I am wearing an Amazon vest."
Exactly! Someone from his background should know you have to watch everybody. What symbols or colors they wear don't prove a thing about how good they are. They sometimes might tell you how bad they are, though.
Ice-T's reaction sounds like it has something to do with him or the culture of wherever he's from. Gangs like you said with their "it's the jungle mindset." They default to and embrace violence in many situations where it's unnecessary. They push thug culture in Memphis, too, but most people avoid violence where possible. Probably why it went down at some point despite lots of folks having a hard time finding work. I don't know current numbers, though, since I live outside Memphis now.
"That being said, if I ever need to put a hit out on Ice-T, I will make sure I am wearing an Amazon vest."
Exactly! Someone from his background should know you have to watch everybody. What symbols or colors they wear don't prove a thing about how good they are. They sometimes might tell you how bad they are, though.
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.
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.
Using George Zimmerman, a trigger-happy vigilante-wannabe, as your example undermines the point you're trying to make.
The political icon George Zimmerman and the political icon Treyvon Martin are different than the actual people. Much of this is because the narrative was established before many facts were known. Here are some facts:
1. Treyvon Martin was in Florida because he was expelled from school. He was expelled because he had jewelry that was burglarized from houses nearby, as well as burglary tools in his school locker.
2. Since Treyvon moved in, there had been several burglaries in the neighborhood.
3. The neighbors were upset about these burglaries and generally liked Zimmerman's proactive attitude. The neighbors generally felt that the police were not effective.
4. Zimmerman saw Martin in the yard of a house peering in the window. His impression was that he might be looking for houses to burglarize. Given what we know of Martin's past, Zimmerman was probably correct in his impression.
5. Martin probably knew that if the police got involved, the police might find out about his prior record, and certainly his father would assume that he was burglarizing homes again, and this would at least cause him trouble at home.
6. From the physical evidence, conflicting witness reports, and the recording of the 911 call, we know with high probability that while Zimmerman was following Martin and waiting for police to arrive, Martin attacked Zimmerman, got him on the ground, and smashed his head against the concrete.
7. At this point, it's fair to say that Zimmerman's life was in significant danger. In that moment, he pulled out his gun and shot the man who was smashing his head into the concrete.
1. Treyvon Martin was in Florida because he was expelled from school. He was expelled because he had jewelry that was burglarized from houses nearby, as well as burglary tools in his school locker.
2. Since Treyvon moved in, there had been several burglaries in the neighborhood.
3. The neighbors were upset about these burglaries and generally liked Zimmerman's proactive attitude. The neighbors generally felt that the police were not effective.
4. Zimmerman saw Martin in the yard of a house peering in the window. His impression was that he might be looking for houses to burglarize. Given what we know of Martin's past, Zimmerman was probably correct in his impression.
5. Martin probably knew that if the police got involved, the police might find out about his prior record, and certainly his father would assume that he was burglarizing homes again, and this would at least cause him trouble at home.
6. From the physical evidence, conflicting witness reports, and the recording of the 911 call, we know with high probability that while Zimmerman was following Martin and waiting for police to arrive, Martin attacked Zimmerman, got him on the ground, and smashed his head against the concrete.
7. At this point, it's fair to say that Zimmerman's life was in significant danger. In that moment, he pulled out his gun and shot the man who was smashing his head into the concrete.
Why is this down voted?
Using Zimmerman as his example makes me think he's trying to walk the line between parody and seriousness.
Poe's Law is a bitch.
You know what else "ain't safe", Ice-T? Defaulting to shooting people you don't recognize!
The unnecessary verbatim quoting, both in the article’s title and in this comment, serve only to highlight the otherness of Ice-T, which then makes it easier to accept the premise, because (clutches pearls) I would certainly do nothing like that!
The unnecessary verbatim quoting, both in the article’s title and in this comment, serve only to highlight the otherness of Ice-T, which then makes it easier to accept the premise, because (clutches pearls) I would certainly do nothing like that!
I'm pretty sure that myself, and most people in the world (i.e. those not living in certain places in the Land of the Free™ or active war zones), would certainly not do something like that.
Well Los Angeles culture is like that you have even greater social inequality in LA than the Bay Area. Robberies of the wealthy are commonplace and the police will get there like 48 hours after the fact. So yes its a dangerous place to deliver for Amazon. If you don't get shot by mistake you could be eaten by a pack of guard dogs.
People say "he's from the street" but damn, he's also a celebrity — that's bound to attract a slew of weird and ill-intentioned people.
That being said, I doubt he would have shot someone unprovoked. That part is for the street cred.
That being said, I doubt he would have shot someone unprovoked. That part is for the street cred.
Which is worse (by far):
* one object's memory becoming corrupted due to a local hardware error
* a change to a class member that silently loses data
Edit: clarification
* one object's memory becoming corrupted due to a local hardware error
* a change to a class member that silently loses data
Edit: clarification
> ... 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.
I was surprised at that part.
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.
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...
A 2015 study found that only 2 of 45 shootings claiming self-defense in Texas were even charged...
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).
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).
>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.
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.
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?
Did Ice-T say the delivery guy was doing that? I assumed creeping up just meant he was walking toward the house.
Conservative states don't always have duty to retreat laws. Even for those that do, dead men tell no tales. Ice T could have just murdered the delivery man then lied about threatening behavior.
Good thing he didn't, because otherwise the guy could have been killed!
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?
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?
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.
I don't get it... Why would your default impulse when an unknown person approaches your house be to shoot them?
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.
I... just... I mean...
I'm not American, so it's difficult to wrap my head around either of these concepts.
I'm not American, so it's difficult to wrap my head around either of these concepts.
I'm not American, so it's difficult to wrap my head around either of these concepts.
Which concept confuses you?
That a person could find the behavior of someone on their property suspicious, or an entertainer exaggerating something to enhance their public image?
Which concept confuses you?
That a person could find the behavior of someone on their property suspicious, or an entertainer exaggerating something to enhance their public image?
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.
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.
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), compared to about 17,000 murders, of which those committed in the course of a home invasion are most likely a small fraction.
He was joking. He probably got startled.
"Only in America", as my friends say.
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.
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
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
> 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?
Are there laws for this? Why would I not be able to remove a drone (or any other foreign object) from my own property?
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-confi...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confi...
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/
2: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
3: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...
4: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
5: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircra...
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/
2: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
3: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...
4: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
5: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2-aircra...
Perhaps Dirlewanger means "drone" as in "worker bee" i.e. delivery driver?
Amazon sometimes uses drivers who don't have uniforms, and who drive private cars.
Amazon sometimes uses drivers who don't have uniforms, and who drive private cars.
>What's the problem here? If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway?
Why do drones get more protection than people? If a person trespasses on my property and makes me fear for my life I can use force if I'm in a stand your ground state.
A drone may contain bombs or weapons, and a drone that crashes down on you can kill you[1]. It's already violating the law via trespassing, and I'd be willing to bet a thing will get less protection than a living being from a judge.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/nyregion/remote-controlle...
Why do drones get more protection than people? If a person trespasses on my property and makes me fear for my life I can use force if I'm in a stand your ground state.
A drone may contain bombs or weapons, and a drone that crashes down on you can kill you[1]. It's already violating the law via trespassing, and I'd be willing to bet a thing will get less protection than a living being from a judge.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/nyregion/remote-controlle...
The difference is the drone isn't "on" your property, so technically not "trespassing," unless it lands. Airspace (from the top of your grass on up) is controlled by the FAA and it's a federal crime to interfere with an aircraft of any type. You don't own the air, only real property.
And yet Robert Duvall lost his case when an angry neighbor shot down hos trespassing drone. No federal charges there.
The issue is that most forms of interference (shooting it, jamming it) have a tendency to make the drone fall out of the sky. That is rather dangerous.
> What's the problem here? If a drone is flying around you're not exactly allowed to interfere with it anyway?
Really? We have already seem people shooting them down when flying near their homes.
Really? We have already seem people shooting them down when flying near their homes.
Yes, all federal crimes, that weren't prosecuted, although they absolutely could have. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-confi...
> 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.
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.
You know what else "ain't safe", Ice-T? Defaulting to shooting people you don't recognize!