Armed Rideshare Driver Gets Carjacked

[Craig_AR]

21 minute video of USCCA member describing his successful repelling of two carjackers. Includes the dash cam footage of one attacked in the car with him, and his use of his gun to drive the carjacker off.
No shots were fired.
He is interviewed by an official of USCCA with his attorney present.

Lots of details worth discussion here:
1. He keeps his SD pistol unholstered in his car door instead of holstered on body.
2. As a USCCA member he has watched some training videos but it appears he has not had formal self defense handgun training.
3. He gave the responding officers the memory card (he called it a SIM card; it isn't) from his dash cam during the initial LEO contact, instead of waiting to talk to his lawyer.
4. He was able to articulate why he chose not to shoot either of the attackers.

Additional comments from his lawyer are informative.

Note: I am not a USCCA member, although I have taken some of their training. Obviously, the linked page and video are being used to seek new members. Do not give them your e-mail address unless you are ready to receive marketing mail from Tim Schmidt EVERY DARN DAY!

 

[Kleanbore]

Wow!

 

[Old Dog]

1. He keeps his SD pistol unholstered in his car door instead of holstered on body.

In this state, that would technically be illegal as the RCWs (9.41.050) state:
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
Not seeming to be routinely enforced against CPL holders, as traffic stops indicate a large number of folks typically place handguns in center consoles or in door pockets; but you can bet if children are in the car (or there's detected the odor of drugs or alcohol), it will be enforced.

3. He gave the responding officers the memory card (he called it a SIM card; it isn't) from his dash cam during the initial LEO contact, instead of waiting to talk to his lawyer.

Mighty generous (and possibly not very smart) of him...

4. He was able to articulate why he chose not to shoot either of the attackers.

He definitely showed more restraint than some similar recent cases I've seen cops involved in...

 

[Atavar]

Just FYI..
All rideshare companies have rules prohibiting carry of ANY form of defense weapon. This has been ruled to include pepper spray, knives, even a screwdriver or striking tool.
That driver has certainly been permanently deactivated.
As a rideshare driver I think a firearm is an exceptionally bad defense weapon for this scenario. Consider how awkward it would be to try to effectively aim and fire at a person seated directly behind you.
In every state I am familiar with deadly force cannot be used to protect property like a car or money.
This is a discussion that comes up frequently on rideshare forums.

 

[Blue Jays]

"…This is a discussion that comes up frequently on rideshare forums…"

So what are THEIR suggestions for just such a scenario as what this driver faced?

 

[Atavar]

Scattered all over the board. A lot of prevention, things like keeping doors locked until passengers arrived. Much talk about which weapons would be effective. Situational awareness.

 

[starnbar]

After 25 years on the job I have seen a lot of victims who complied with the assailant and were then executed because the criminal did not want any witnesses yeah that scenario does happen a lot.

 

[CDW4ME]

Just FYI..
All rideshare companies have rules prohibiting carry of ANY form of defense weapon.

Whoever came up with those rules most likely isn't picking up potential killers in their vehicle.
No way in heck I'd pick up strangers, doing so unarmed is mind boggling.

 

[Craig_AR]

All rideshare companies have rules prohibiting carry of ANY form of defense weapon.

During the interview he said he kept his gun in the door instead of on his person because of the no-guns policy. I suspect he had interpreted that policy to mean he was not to carry a gun, but that simply having it in the car did not violate the policy.

In every state I am familiar with deadly force cannot be used to protect property like a car or money.

The video shows that the one in the car was putting a cell phone against the driver's neck to make him think it was a gun. While the two attackers were apparently not armed, the intentional faux gun use of the cell phone definitely put the driver in a position of perceiving he was facing a deadly threat; he was defending his life, not his car or money.

 

[jmorris]

Whoever came up with those rules most likely isn't picking up potential killers in their vehicle.

Kind of like law makers that want to “rethink” and defund police departments while they spend millions on private security for themselves?

 

[Telum Pisces]

Just FYI..
All rideshare companies have rules prohibiting carry of ANY form of defense weapon. This has been ruled to include pepper spray, knives, even a screwdriver or striking tool.
That driver has certainly been permanently deactivated.
As a rideshare driver I think a firearm is an exceptionally bad defense weapon for this scenario. Consider how awkward it would be to try to effectively aim and fire at a person seated directly behind you.
In every state I am familiar with deadly force cannot be used to protect property like a car or money.
This is a discussion that comes up frequently on rideshare forums.

Well he's alive and can find another job! This was not about protecting money or a car. If someone is threatening you with deadly force or great bodily harm, you can respond accordingly in "every state I'm familiar with. Someone trying to carjack you while attempting to act like they are pressing a gun against you is what I would call a threat of deadly force or bodily harm.

With that said, if someone has a jump on you and has a gun pointed point blank at you, there are limited options you have to respond at that very moment in time. You usually have to defer to some other tactic to gain space and an advantage to respond.

And try to take property at night in Texas! You can be littered with bullets for that in that state.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Whoever came up with those rules most likely isn't picking up potential killers in their vehicle.

This has nothing to do with it. Rather, it has everything to do with liability and insurance. And for business in general, as they don't wish to lose customers over this.

They may couch this in other terms, but that's what it boils down to.

Rideshare Guy talks about it in his blog. I took out the links in posting this below, so if you want to check them, go to his blog to see.


Is This Fair Policy?

Lyft’s weapons policy is strict for drivers and riders. Lyft’s no weapons policy means that even if you’re legally allowed to carry a weapon, you’re asked not to carry one while driving for Lyft. The policy states, “We approach this from a community perspective. It’s hard to know what someone else is or isn’t comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.”

Lyft lists a myriad of weapons that are not allowed, but it’s not an exhaustive list. It includes firearms, handguns, stun guns, explosives, sling shots, tasers and more. Lyft is the determinant of what a weapon is and if anyone is not adhering to the policy. If you want to know if what you plan on carrying is considered a weapon under the policy, you should contact Lyft Support.

Uber also has a firearms policy, but their policy isn’t as descriptive as Lyft’s. They state: “Uber prohibits riders and their guests, as well as driver and delivery partners, from carrying firearms of any kind while using the app, to the extent permitted by applicable law.”

It goes on to describe what a situation where a firearm is allowed would look like according to the Transportation Security Administration rules. Uber’s policy allows non-lethal weapons such as tasers and pepper spray, as long as they are legal according to your state law.

You can find more of our recommended safety solutions, including a driver partition, here.

And in a strange twist, Uber’s policy actually allows drivers to carry non-lethal weapons – but does that mean you should?


https://therideshareguy.com/are-uber-and-lyft-drivers-allowed-to-carry-non-lethal-weapons/

 

[CDW4ME]

Whoever came up with those rules most likely isn't picking up potential killers in their vehicle.
No way in heck I'd pick up strangers, doing so unarmed is mind boggling.

This has nothing to do with it. Rather, it has everything to do with liability and insurance. And for business in general, as they don't wish to lose customers over this.

Lyft’s weapons policy is strict for drivers and riders. Lyft’s no weapons policy means that even if you’re legally allowed to carry a weapon, you’re asked not to carry one while driving for Lyft. The policy states, “We approach this from a community perspective. It’s hard to know what someone else is or isn’t comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.”

I doubt what I said is wrong; the people that run the company are not picking up strangers (potential killers) in their vehicle.
Liability and/or insurance is more a priority than employees being able to protect themselves, and that applies to many businesses that prohibit employee carry.
Riders are prohibited from carrying weapons. LOL. Do they wand riders before allowing them to enter vehicle? If not its meaningless.
I don't intend to ever be a Lyft driver, but if I was I'd thoroughly violate the heck out of their policy. One can get another job ... if they aint dead.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Compliance with third party corporate weapons "policies" is not one of my big concerns, especially as a customer. If it's your vested professional career, that could be different, some gig economy job doesn't warrant sacrifice of personal security.

 

[Craig_AR]

Uber and Lyft both ban riders from carrying guns when using the app? Hmmmm, you are supposed to disarm before even seeking a ride!
OK, so if a rider is discovered carrying the punishment would be... wait for it... not allowing you to use the app anymore!
And how would they find out you were carrying?
Oh, they find out when you use your carry gun to save their driver's life!

 

[Atavar]

The punishment for a rider carrying would most likely be a mild reprimand. If a rider is banned from the app Lyft loses income.
If a driver is banned from the app another driver fills the gap.
The consensus I hear most often on the rideshare boards is what was stated above - driver can get another job, if he’s alive.

 

[Kleanbore]

I haven't used them.

 

[herrwalther]

I signed on with Uber years ago to make extra money. Then I saw their fine print firearms policy. No way I was going to pick up strangers in a top 10 murder city without being armed. So I cancelled the application, emailed their driver support, and trashed the app from my phone. If other drivers want to put themselves through that, be armed and get fired or be unarmed and hurt/killed. That is on them.

 

[Atavar]

I occasionally use Lyft and Uber as a passenger. I may be in the minority but I would hope my driver was trained, practiced and armed - in that order.
Now a rookie guy that bought a gun so he could feel better - just a bad idea.