world

Bail denied for Michigan Uber driver charged with killing six

24 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

24 Comments
Login to comment

An Uber representative confirmed Dalton was a company driver and had passed background checks

This is isn't the first time Uber has had problems with its background checks.

Uber has some real problems.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Maybe he was just a responsible gun owner- until he wasn't. Maybe he was a law abiding citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights-until he was no longer law abiding. Perhaps he was sane-until he wasn't.

Perhaps he shouldn't have a gun-but he did.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

......and people crash cars, nobody should have one.

The man has issues, he certainly does not represent the vast majority of gun owners.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Black Sabbath: This is isn't the first time Uber has had problems with its background checks.

For one thing, rogue cab drivers predate Uber.

For another, if background checks got any more invasive you'd be complaining about THAT.

Wanna shine bright lights in his eyes and see if his pupils dilate upon mention of "Colt 45"? Or put a strain gage on his whatsis?

http://recode.net/2016/02/21/suspected-shooter-behind-kalamazoo-murders-was-uber-driver-with-no-criminal-record/

... In this case, however, it looks as though faulty checks are not to blame.

Reached by phone, police chief Hadley confirmed that Dalton had no criminal background. “He was very clean,” Hadley said. “Nothing.”

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The man has issues, he certainly does not represent the vast majority of gun owners.

Maybe not, but along with the permission (which I'm not going to mistakenly call a 'right') to carry guns, comes people who will abuse them like this guy. So everyone who defends the permission to own guns bears some responsibility for this, as their defense has of this permission has directly led to the deaths of the people in this town.

Gun ownership doesn't come in a vacuum. It doesn't end with your own ownership, it extends to everyone else who is also allowed to own guns, sharing in your permission.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

By this logic all drivers and passengers bear responsibility for motor vehicle accidents. There are better arguments for gun control.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

By this logic all drivers and passengers bear responsibility for motor vehicle accidents.

You're actually right.

But the fact that vehicles are a necessity for our society to live makes that a lot more palatable, which is why people don't think or talk about it (much). Our society would collapse without vehicles, but if we had a method of replacing them in a manner that would ensure no more accidental deaths, you can bet people would rejoice and go for it.

Guns on the other hand are not necessary for society whatsoever, and serve no positive purpose at all. So it's a lot more distasteful, and it should be pointed out every time someone is shot that all those who defend the permission to own guns share some of the responsibility for these deaths.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Guns on the other hand are not necessary for society whatsoever, and serve no positive purpose at all.

Exactly! The only purpose of guns are to kill. Gun-rights advocates squeal incessantly about their right to own a gun, but fail to pay attention to the right of non-gun owners to live in a country where they don’t have to worry about being shot and killed by one. I refuse to believe that this gun owner’s right was more important than his victims’.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

But the fact that vehicles are a necessity for our society to live makes that a lot more palatable,

Private ownership of motor vehicles is not a necessity, you have public transportation. The only reason why anyone could claim that private ownership of vehicles is a need is because they refuse to fund public transportation.

Our society would collapse without vehicles, but if we had a method of replacing them in a manner that would ensure no more accidental deaths, you can bet people would rejoice and go for it.

That is not a true statement at all, societies thrived without motor vehicles. The human race has had a method of replacing private ownership of motor vehicles that would dramatically reduce accidental deaths and that is fully funding public transportation.

Guns on the other hand are not necessary for society whatsoever, and serve no positive purpose at all.

Every government would disagree, in order to maintain order you need violence and more importantly they want or need a monopoly on the violence. If violence was not a need then law enforcement would not exist. Guns serve as a powerful weapon for those defending others and themselves from those who wish to due harm for malicious reasons. Granted this type of power goes both ways. Target shooting is also a very fun recreational activity for a lot of people and this is especially important for people who have physical disabilities, target shooting is one of the few recreational activities where people with physical disabilities can compete at the same level as those who are not. I know quite a few people who are paralyzed where target shooting has helped them gain confidence and boost their self-esteem in who they are as a person simply because they are able to compete in tournaments with those who are not disabled and still be on an equal footing and win those competitions.

Very respected universities such as Harvard have school sanctioned teams for target shooting. So clearly they see a positive impact, which now begs the question: How has Harvard been able to find a positive use for them when you have not? Gun ranges bring in a lot of tourists dollars, especially in Hawaii and Las Vegas as well.

Then you factor in that as a hunters weapon they can help dramatically reduce the pain and suffering and duration that animals face and it helps provide a nutritious and lean and cheap source of protein to families.

So it's a lot more distasteful, and it should be pointed out every time someone is shot that all those who defend the permission to own guns share some of the responsibility for these deaths.

People share responsibility for all the deaths caused by every single thing they approve of, so what? If the only acceptable cost to own products, use services and enjoy hobbies, products, services, and recreational activities is zero than we are all going to live very boring lives.

Do you really honestly blame people for saying that when a product in general is owned by 32-50% of the adult population for recreation and it results on an annual basis of one hundredth of one percent of the population dying that it is an acceptable cost?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Private ownership of motor vehicles is not a necessity, you have public transportation.

But guns are a necessity?

Mork calling Orson...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Private ownership of motor vehicles is not a necessity, you have public transportation. The only reason why anyone could claim that private ownership of vehicles is a need is because they refuse to fund public transportation.

You still have motor vehicles on the road either way, but I agree that we could definitely cut down on the number of cars on the road if cities would invest in more public transport, and people used it more.

Every government would disagree, in order to maintain order you need violence and more importantly they want or need a monopoly on the violence.

I agree, police and military generally need guns. They however have stricter controls on their weapons, and theoretically have rules around when they can/cannot shoot someone, keeping gun deaths to a minimum.

This is not however the gun ownership I've been discussing, I'm talking about the permission for the common man to be able to own guns. Anyone who supports that bears some responsibility every time another common person goes off and shoots people, like the guy in this article.

People share responsibility for all the deaths caused by every single thing they approve of, so what?

That's 100% correct. People do have responsibility for every single thing they approve of, and the more aware we all become of this fact, the better our planet will be. Each society and person has to decide how much they want to use whatever it is, in regards to how many deaths the usage of that thing will cause.

America has decided that it's willing to give people the permission to own guns, and everyone who supports that bears some responsibility for the results of that support. So every person who supports personal gun ownership in the US bears some responsibility for the random people who got shot in Kalamazoo.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

But guns are a necessity?

Weapons one way or another are a necessity in order to maintain order. Whether be public or private is up for debate. I'm not claiming either way if guns are a necessity in private hands. All governments claim they need an armed force with firearms, no?

Mork calling Orson...

OK...........

You still have motor vehicles on the road either way, but I agree that we could definitely cut down on the number of cars on the road if cities would invest in more public transport, and people used it more.

Right, just like how if you banned private ownership of firearms you still have firearms either way.

They however have stricter controls on their weapons, and theoretically have rules around when they can/cannot shoot someone, keeping gun deaths to a minimum.

Same is true with private owners of firearms, there are controls on when they can and cannot use force against someone. The issue is discipline.

This is not however the gun ownership I've been discussing

Right, which is why I made a point talking about private ownership of motor vehicles and not the public ownership of motor vehicles because you are talking about the private ownership of firearms and not the public ownership of firearms.

Anyone who supports that bears some responsibility every time another common person goes off and shoots people, like the guy in this article.

Right, just like how everyone who supports something bears the responsibility every time someone gets hurt or killed. So what?

So every person who supports personal gun ownership in the US bears some responsibility for the random people who got shot in Kalamazoo.

And? Everyone who supports personal consumption of Alcohol bears some responsibility for all the assaults and homicides that result because of intoxicated people. So what.

America has decided that it's willing to give people the permission to own guns.

Geee that's a surprise, who could have ever thought that when you have a product that 32-50% of the population owns and it results in one one hundredth of one percent being killed and two hundredths of one percent of the population being physically wounded on an annual basis that they might find it an acceptable cost.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As ever, the steel phallus death cult diminishes the suffering of the bereaved families, friends and colleagues, the ongoing care needed by the maimed, the all-consuming burden on carers, and the financial impact on insurance premiums.

It's an acceptable cost (so much so they repeat it) to these ghouls.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Right, just like how if you banned private ownership of firearms you still have firearms either way.

Yes, but then people wouldn't have to take responsibility for deaths like this, because they wouldn't be supporting an environment that causes deaths like this to happen. On top of that, you'd see a lot less gun killings.

Same is true with private owners of firearms, there are controls on when they can and cannot use force against someone. The issue is discipline.

And as you can see in the US, there is a serious issue with discipline, this article just being one of hundreds of such incidents every year. Unfortunately, some people cannot be trusted to be disciplined, and since legal gun ownership by the people means that those people who cannot discipline themselves will also have access to guns, it means that everyone who pushes for legal gun ownership bears some of the responsibilities for the deaths of the people in this incident and every other.

Right, just like how everyone who supports something bears the responsibility every time someone gets hurt or killed.

Yes, exactly.

So what?

So, the people who push for legal gun ownership bear some responsibility for this incident. I've already said that multiple times, so I'm not sure why you are asking 'so what?' - my point is pretty clear, you shouldn't need to ask.

And? Everyone who supports personal consumption of Alcohol bears some responsibility for all the assaults and homicides that result because of intoxicated people.

Yes, that is true.

So what.

See above.

Geee that's a surprise, who could have ever thought that when you have a product that 32-50% of the population owns and it results in one one hundredth of one percent being killed and two hundredths of one percent of the population being physically wounded on an annual basis that they might find it an acceptable cost.

And there you have it. You have very clearly said that you see the deaths of these people as an acceptable cost. I hope that the families of those kids can find solace in the fact that you are ok with the deaths of their loved ones, so long as you are allowed to have guns yourself.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Noliving - The human race has had a method of replacing private ownership of motor vehicles that would dramatically reduce accidental deaths and that is fully funding public transportation.

Dammit man that's one step from communism. I'd rather be shot by an insane Uber driver :D

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm pessimistic enough to think that the rightist government will allow gun ownership, and then we will see the US mass murders with guns come to Japan. In any case, I'm sure that US gun makers will use the TTP so say "But you can't keep us out! Or we will sue for lost profits!" (which companies can do under TTP).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

badmigraines:

By this logic all drivers and passengers bear responsibility for motor vehicle accidents.

Somehow I don't think these six people were killed in an accident. Neither were those who were killed in the other countless mass-shootings in the US.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This is isn't the first time Uber has had problems with its background checks.

Uber has some real problems.

What problems with the background checks did Uber have with this incident? The guy had no prior record and so ANY background check would have come back "negative". What sort of background check are you saying they SHOULD have conducted that would have been able to look into a crystal ball and foresee the future? "Minority Report" was a work of fiction, not fact, dude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Initial checks with a key federal agency indicate Dalton was unknown to both law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies for having any kind of known connection to extremist groups.

-from a Taxi-Driver perspective "Uber" is a known and open terrorist group.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland Are you trying to argue with Americans over Gun control also cars are not needed anymore than when they were first made.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

MarkG: The man has issues, he certainly does not represent the vast majority of gun owners.

Kinda of like Muslims and terrorism, yet some want to ban them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MarkG: The man has issues, he certainly does not represent the vast majority of gun owners.

Kinda of like Muslims and terrorism, yet some want to ban them.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Kinda of like Muslims and terrorism, yet some want to ban them.

And that ended the thread.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, but then people wouldn't have to take responsibility for deaths like this, because they wouldn't be supporting an environment that causes deaths like this to happen. On top of that, you'd see a lot less gun killings.

Right and people wouldn't have to take responsibility for the deaths if they didn't support alcohol or private ownership of motor vehicles.....So what?

And as you can see in the US, there is a serious issue with discipline, this article just being one of hundreds of such incidents every year. Unfortunately, some people cannot be trusted to be disciplined, and since legal gun ownership by the people means that those people who cannot discipline themselves will also have access to guns, it means that everyone who pushes for legal gun ownership bears some of the responsibilities for the deaths of the people in this incident and every other.

That is a subjective viewpoint isn't it? If we say that a three hundredths of one percent casualty rate on annual basis is a serious issue with discipline would that mean everywhere around the developed world has an even bigger issue with discipline with regards to Alcohol considering Alcohol kills more and sends more people to the hospital in all developed nations than firearms kill and send people to the hospital in the USA? If the USA has as serious of an issue with discipline regarding firearms as you claim, and considering all the hyperbole surrounding the danger of firearm ownership, then shouldn't the casualty rate be much higher than three hundredths of one percent?

Yes they do bear some of the responsibility. We both acknowledge that, just like we both acknowledge that we all here bear the responsibilities for the deaths of people killed by recreational drinking of Alcohol. So what is your point? That people should give up all things that they do for fun that result in people dying?

So, the people who push for legal gun ownership bear some responsibility for this incident. I've already said that multiple times, so I'm not sure why you are asking 'so what?' - my point is pretty clear, you shouldn't need to ask.

Well apparently I do need to ask because you keep trying to imply something by saying gun owners are responsible for these deaths. It is like you are trying to shame gun owners into giving up the recreational ownership of firearms but it keeps falling flat.

And there you have it. You have very clearly said that you see the deaths of these people as an acceptable cost. I hope that the families of those kids can find solace in the fact that you are ok with the deaths of their loved ones, so long as you are allowed to have guns yourself.

Right, just like how you believe a death rate that is two to two and half times that of firearms in the USA for Alcohol is an acceptable cost so that you can consume Alcohol purely for pleasure. I hope that the families of those kids can find solace in the fact that you are ok with the deaths of their loved ones, so long as you are allowed to drink Alcohol.

If the only acceptable cost to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero deaths and zero injuries then we are all going to live very boring lives.

You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

Get over yourself. You do not care about these people's lives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites