zlacker

[return to "Minneapolis driver shot and killed by ICE"]
1. resume+SL1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 08:01:38
>>fzeror+(OP)
This was after the alleged attempted ICE ramming in Oakland last year where shots were fired but thankfully nobody died. I think there was a similar incident in LA. It would be great if there were technology to solve this problem. People perceive cars as deadly weapons and open fire and whether it’s good or not people who think they’re going to get smooshed and have a firearm will tend to use it. I didn’t see the one today but there have been enough of these cases that it really begs for a technological solution, like some sort of kill switch (no pun) that halts a vehicle if a person is in front of it. They’d have to make a law to retrofit older vehicles but it seems like something we could engineer fairly cheaply, and it would prevent at least some of these events. Even cases where the person in front of the car aren’t cops, like the guy who drove through the Christmas parade and killed the little kids, or the nazi kid in Charlottesville. Car rammings are becoming a horrible sort of meme. It’s contagious.
◧◩
2. bigyab+3N1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 08:12:39
>>resume+SL1
> like some sort of kill switch (no pun) that halts a vehicle if a person is in front of it.

That is a horrible and dangerous reaction that does not solve the problem whatsoever. You are typing this comment with your heart, not with your brain.

◧◩◪
3. resume+VO1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 08:29:50
>>bigyab+3N1
We have mandatory seat belts and air bags. A sensor on the hood to insure a car is not being used as a murder weapon seems minimal in comparison. Such a sensor would save many lives including the young lady involved in the incident today. We have strict gun laws, why does it make sense to let any psycho buy a cheap used car and go kill people with it? It’s a glaring inconsistency.
◧◩◪◨
4. HaZeus+0Q1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 08:40:43
>>resume+VO1
Outside of the pragmatic argument of current-tech limitations for such an implementation, cars should sometimes be a weapon.

If all cars were mandated by law to not accelerate when a person is in front of them, doesn't that give carjackers pretty much guaranteed success to confront and forcibly stop their victim before stealing their car, their belongings, or taking their life?

Why would I even bother buying a nice car if I know someone can just walk up in front of its front grill and hold me at gunpoint, and my car can't help but force me to stay there?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. resume+Pv2[view] [source] 2026-01-08 14:28:21
>>HaZeus+0Q1
So we should have shootings like the one yesterday just because you want to drive a Lamborghini and murder carjackers? Current tech is totally sufficient to implement this. It’s already found in Waymo taxis based on news reports I’ve seen. It probably exists in teslas too, give or take software updates. It seems almost trivial: if someone is a foot in front of the car, disconnect the accelerator or drop to neutral on high acceleration. If cars can run people over from a dead stop, and if this is a common issue in law enforcement where people try to run over cops, and it clearly is, then we will have many more shootings like yesterday’s. That’s a world you want to live in? She wrote poetry.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Tadpol+sD2[view] [source] 2026-01-08 15:02:08
>>resume+Pv2
I just watched a video where, at night in an isolated road flanked by woods, a man stops his truck in front of a woman in her car alone. He then sprints from his car toward her driver side door.

That woman would be raped and murdered in the middle of nowhere if her car disallowed her from making an executive decision for her safety.

Your idea is bad.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. resume+gg3[view] [source] 2026-01-08 18:02:32
>>Tadpol+sD2
Your reasoning is flawed. The man could have parked his truck in front of her car and her ability to ram it wouldn’t make a difference. Most car jackers and would be rapists do not approach their victim on foot at a 0 degree approach angle, from the front, they come from 270 degrees (the driver side), where the door they will open is located. They cannot jack the car or rape without that side approach.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Tadpol+l54[view] [source] 2026-01-08 22:29:52
>>resume+gg3
I'm sorry, does the gated community even let you out? Or women in? It's painfully obvious you've never in your life had to be concerned about your safety in any meaningful way.

> Criminals would never get in front of a car. Especially after you legally mandate that by doing it their victim cannot escape by any means anymore.

Like, can you even hear yourself?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. resume+G95[view] [source] 2026-01-09 08:50:53
>>Tadpol+l54
What is the value of being in front of a car? The value is in opening the door, which is on the side. Sure you could have two jackers, one in front and another on the side but then running over 1 of the 2 (or more) again becomes useless as the side jacker would shoot you.

> Or women in?

You must be rolling in women. Lucky them. Maybe you can take them out to dinner and run over some car jackers on the way home.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. Tadpol+pg6[view] [source] 2026-01-09 16:48:10
>>resume+G95
Oh, that last one speaks volumes about you.
[go to top]