Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Transportation

Homeless Man Tries to Steal Waymo Robotaxi in Los Angeles (msn.com) 93

Posted by EditorDavid from the welcome-to-L-A dept.
A homeless man "was taken into custody on suspicion of grand theft auto," reports the Los Angeles Times, "after police said he tried to steal a Waymo self-driving car in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday night." The man entered and tried to operate a Waymo vehicle that had stopped to let out a passenger at the corner of 1st and Main at 10:30 p.m., Los Angeles Police Department detective Meghan Aguilar said. After the man, whom a Waymo spokesman described as an "unauthorized pedestrian," entered the vehicle, the company's Rider Support team instructed him to exit the car. When he did not, the company contacted the police, "who were then able to remove and arrest" the man, said Chris Bonelli, a Waymo spokesman...

No injuries were reported by the rider, and there was no damage to the vehicle, Bonelli said. The car was stationary during the entire incident because an unauthorized person was identified by the company to be in the vehicle, according to Waymo.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homeless Man Tries to Steal Waymo Robotaxi in Los Angeles More

Homeless Man Tries to Steal Waymo Robotaxi in Los Angeles

Comments Filter:

  • These car thieves (Score:5, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @03:40AM (#64287616)

    They really need to be waymo' careful about what they're trying to steal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mrbester ( 200927 )

      He mistook it for a Johnnycab which has a manual override.

      • It does have a manual override, it just isn't in the vehicle.

        Next step, self delivery to the police station so the police don't have to come get him.

        Robocop electrocution is discouraged.

    • Re:These car thieves (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:35AM (#64287748) Homepage

      Did he even actually try to "steal" the car, or is that just the police's spin on a homeless man looking for a place to sleep and refusing to leave the vehicle? Because my level of surprise at the latter would be "0%".

      • Yeh, theyâ(TM)ll probably have a real tough time proving that his intent was to *permanently* deprive them of their vehicle

      • Did he even actually try to "steal" the car, or is that just the police's spin on a homeless man looking for a place to sleep and refusing to leave the vehicle? Because my level of surprise at the latter would be "0%".

        That was my first thought as well. Trespassing, perhaps, but GTA? I suspect it would be hard to make that case; especially since the car could not be driven by him and he probably was aware of that. I'm guessing he figured it would either nt move or just drive him around.

        • I would expect this charge to be lowered to "Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle" as there is no evidence the person was trying to do more than joyride the car. Even that charge will be difficult to prosecute as the word "use" would normally entail a certain amount of control of the vehicle.

          A couple ways to defend either charge.
          • Abandoned vehicle blocking traffic. The individual was attempting to clear the public thoroughfare.
          • This is a taxi, yet there is no clear marking which seat the customer is exp

          • "joyride the car." - How is that not auto theft?

            • Theft vs. unauthorized use depends on intent. If the perpetrator was just driving the car around, that's the unauthorized use. If the person was planning to chop it up and sell the parts, that's theft. Part of the distinction depends on whether the result would deprive the owner of the car permanently.

        • Consider, if he was looking for shelter, he's getting both shelter and food at the jail.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cstacy ( 534252 )

          Did he even actually try to "steal" the car, or is that just the police's spin

          That was my first thought as well. Trespassing, perhaps, but GTA? I suspect it would be hard to make that case; especially since the car could not be driven by him

          You misunderstand. He was simply arrested for playing GTA on the entertainment console.

      • I would call it Trespassing.

      • Did he even actually try to "steal" the car, or is that just the police's spin on a homeless man looking for a place to sleep and refusing to leave the vehicle? Because my level of surprise at the latter would be "0%".

        I think a very good indication would be the seat he occupied - wouldn't it?
        If he kept staying in the driver seat and refused to leave the vehicle it's really hard to imagine him looking for a place to sleep, if on the other hand he tried to accommodate himself on the rear passenger "bench" then yes - very likely just looking for a place to sleep.

      • FTFA (emphasis mine):

        The man entered and tried to operate a Waymo vehicle ...

        That aside, attempted thefts like this will probably keep happening because there are plenty of people too stupid for it to have occurred to them that Waymo (and every other autonomous car manufacturer) would have taken attempted theft into consideration and implemented ways to thwart it.

      • from the summary, "... tried to operate ..." meaning tried to drive it. I imagine a person in a vehicle, not their own, who is attempting to drive it without the express permission of the owner is most likely stealing it.

  • Seems to be very little tech or news in this one.

    • Re:So, what's the story then? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:00AM (#64287712) Journal
      I disagree. This is part of the ongoing "war" between large tech companies and ordinary people. I don't remember who said "In the future, you will own nothing and be happy", but here is someone who wanted the tech to include him, even though the tech was designed to render ordinary people to little more than paying goods. Even if what he did was illegal (and the big tech companies have lobbied for a lot of things to be illegal), the man tried to make tech work for himself rather than for some big tech overlord..

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I don't remember who said "In the future, you will own nothing and be happy"

        Ida Auken [wikipedia.org]

      • Even if what he did was illegal (and the big tech companies have lobbied for a lot of things to be illegal), the man tried to make tech work for himself rather than for some big tech overlord.

        Big Tech may have successfully lobbied for some controversial things to further their own interests, but "you're not allowed to get into someone else's car and refuse to leave" isn't one of them. I'd say that's been pretty well accepted since before computers existed.

      • I disagree. This is part of the ongoing "war" between large tech companies and ordinary people.

        I think you might be reading too much into it, it's just a story about a man trying (and failing) to steal a car. I'm not sure it's a commentary on tech vs the people.

      • The whole "you will own nothing and be happy" thing was blown out of proportion. It was a short utopian essay, I read it a while ago. People misrepresent the "and be happy" part to be a threat, to mean "you'll accept the crap you're given and not complain, or else." The essay was more about how goods and services will become so cheap that it won't make economic sense to own certain things.

        For example, let's talk about washing machines. Not owning a washing machine sucks, it means you either wash all your sh

    • Yeah no news here. People attempting to steal driverless cars happens so often that there's not even a point in discussing it, and we all know the exact implications that fully autonomous vehicles have on the concept of carjacking ... wait what? How is this not tech or news enough for you?

      • How is this not tech or news enough for you?

        Man tries to steal car, owner calls police, man arrested. The only reason this story exists is that it's a "robotaxi", but that seems to add nothing to the story.

        • Well it being a robotaxi means that he pretty much had no hope of success and there was somebody monitoring remotely who asked him to leave. Maybe some car manufacturers are now selling car monitoring services like they do for home alarms but I'm not aware of it.

  • He was just trying to remove a hazardous vehicle that has obviously been abandoned by its owner. There was no driver or owner in sight and the car was not turned off, not in park and not even locked. Give the man a medal.

  • Unauthorized pedestrian (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04, 2024 @04:03AM (#64287644)
    Where can we get a pedestrian license?

  • Some questions.... (Score:4)

    by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @04:03AM (#64287646)

    OK, first, as a non-American: What is "grand" about grand theft auto and compared to that - what is small theft auto? Isn't it that you either steal a car or you don't?

    And then: how did he try to steal it? Do those cars have any actual control that you could try to override (short circuit) or take any action that could actually lead to taking over control? If not, what action would qualify to be seen as trying to take over control of the car?

    From that summary I can't see what happened besides a guy entering a vehicle that's part of public transport and refusing to leave. That's unallowed entry, squatting, obstruction of traffic and probably a small bunch from sitting on a drivers seat under various influence and littering.

    Well, maybe he had the idea of stealing the car, but what action towards that goal could you take? Do those cars have any of the devices (door and ignition lock, steering wheel) that are usually needed to steal a car?

    • Re:Some questions.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by LesFerg ( 452838 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @04:38AM (#64287674) Homepage
      I think it refers to stealing something of greater value than 'petty' theft, which is, you know, petty.

      • Though the official spelling has been shifting some (so you're not wrong), traditionally it was "petit theft" (pronounced mostly the same) and based on French terms.

        Grand = French for big
        Petit = French for small

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      If there is no way of taking control of the vehicle manually then he can't have been sitting in a driver's seat while intoxicated.

    • Re:Some questions.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @04:49AM (#64287692)
      OK, first, as a non-American: What is "grand" about grand theft auto and compared to that - what is small theft auto? Isn't it that you either steal a car or you don't?

      You seem confused, so maybe as an American I can help you to understand. "Grand" (meaning large) and "Petty" (from Petit, meaning small) come from French, and they have the same meaning in English (Even in "America"). Grand Theft is simply the theft of property that exceeds a value that is determined to be "large". What constitutes large is going to vary by jurisdiction.

      I hope that clears up your confusion.

      • Yes. Thank you. So stealing a car is always "Grand" as there are no cars that are in the price range of what you would probably shoplift.

        • It's (grand theft) auto, not grand (theft auto).

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Usually, stealing a car is grand theft by legal definition. In California [findlaw.com], the usual threshold for "grand theft" is $950 but any automobile or firearm counts, even if the value is under $950.

          In the other hand, all theft in California requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property in question, and TFS doesn't make it obvious how that will be proven.

        • Yes. Thank you. So stealing a car is always "Grand" as there are no cars that are in the price range of what you would probably shoplift.

          When I was last on the grand jury 15 years ago, the dollar amount for grand theft was $100. Shoplifters were definitely in that category at the time. We saw some.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dusanyu ( 675778 )
        grand theft in some states also incudes things like a search-and-rescue dog on duty, public records from a public office or official, metal wire from a utility, access devices, anhydrous ammonia and, firearms

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And then: how did he try to steal it? Do those cars have any actual control that you could try to override (short circuit) or take any action that could actually lead to taking over control? If not, what action would qualify to be seen as trying to take over control of the car?

      Yes, they do have physical controls for safety reasons that a human can operate. If you bothered to spend 30 seconds to look this up rather than us doing your work for you, you would have know that. But I think you're being rheto

    • Re:Some questions.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by az-saguaro ( 1231754 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:40AM (#64287752)

      Your comments remind me of a story I read in the Wall Street Journal years ago. A man sneaked onto a locomotive and took it for a joy ride. The gist of the story was about the law enforcement and prosecutorial dilemma of it all. The first instinct of "the law" was to charge him with theft. But, the locomotive never left the rails. As it was never off of railroad company property, it was not stolen. As I recall, the best they could come up with was trespassing and unauthorized use. I thought there was a certain irony or comedy in that, so I never forgot it.

    • Like when the cops charge someone with passively resisting arrest.

    • just don't change them with DUI as well as that will be bad for self driving cars

  • Another take (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Artem S. Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @04:17AM (#64287650) Homepage
    He did not try to steal it, he intended to be caught and put in jail 'cause for many people it's better than being homeless and not having the food or shelter that jail provides.

    • He did not try to steal it, he intended to be caught and put in jail 'cause for many people it's better than being homeless and not having the food or shelter that jail provides.

      I watched a documentary on the rapidly ageing Japanese population, and they interviewed a pensioner that did exactly that. He would do a crime that would get him around a 1 year sentence (seemed to only require some minor shoplifting, but I guess he was a repeat offender) then he would hang in prison for a year. At the end of the year his pension payments would have accumulated in a savings account and he would be able to live off them for another year. Rinse and repeat.

      It's pretty screwed up, but you have

      • Re:Another take (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday March 04, 2024 @05:45AM (#64287756) Homepage

        My favourite example is from the USSR (sadly I don't remember the person's name). He was from a bourgeois family, and while he had survived recent purges, when he heard rumours that a new purge was likely coming, he was pretty certain he wouldn't survive this one. So he goes into town in the middle of the night. Breaks into a store. Fills a bag with goods. Then lies down and waits for the police to come and arrest him.

        When the purge happens, he's serving out a short prison sentence. While many people in the west tend to view the Soviet legal system (and Russia today) as arbitrary, it's better thought as hyperbureaucratic - the policies may not necessarily align with the laws, but the policies are strictly carried out. And in the Soviet bureaucracy, there were different systems for common criminals and political criminals. He was now a common criminal, he'd been processed by the system and was serving out his sentence... thus he wasn't one of those political criminals outside the jail secretly working to undercut the glorious Soviet system. He survived the purge.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Japan used to rely on children looking after their parents, but as people moved to cities for work that broke down. They also have an unusual property market, where property depreciates over time until it is worth nothing after about 50-60 years, i.e. the lifetime of the person who bought it new. At that point is is torn down and replaced with a new building.

        As such, people don't build up massive property wealth like they do in the West, which can be used to pay for their care in old age. Often their childr

  • I'm pretty sure I've seen a black mirror episode about this. Next they will have to hire people to protect all these robo vehicles from vandalism. But they won't want to hire people because *dollars* so they will replace them with robots. Robot dogs specifically. With guns. Eventually the robots are gunning down homeless people who are trying to steal from rubbish bins because rich people will own the rubbish as well.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      Eventually the robots are gunning down homeless people who are trying to steal from rubbish bins because rich people will own the rubbish as well.

      Fun fact: In my jurisdiction, trash is not "public property" or otherwise for the taking, and if someone absolutely wanted to press charges then yes, taking something from the rubbish bin would be theft.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That is the case in the UK too, and people have been prosecuted for it.

        You can also screw up someone's life by stealing their rubbish and fly tipping it. As long as it can be traced back to them, e.g. there is some mail with their name and address on it, eventually they will be prosecuted for illegally dumping their rubbish. It's one of those situations where the onus is on them to prove they didn't do it, which of course is impossible.

        • I remember reading about this a long time ago. Which is why I never throw out anything with my name and address on it. Any address/account details on letters, parcels etc. are removed and burnt (with letters etc. being shredded before being put in the recycling bin :)

      • And, in some cases, I can see charges being filed. It can be disconcerting to have some unexpected person on your property going through your trash. Especially if they leave a squalid mess. In my neighborhood, I imagine there would be prosecution for this. On the other hand, if somebody asked if they sift neatly through my trash, I'd be delighted to accommodate them.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tom ( 822 )

          True, but those would be different things (trespassing on my property vs. stealing my trash).

          • In suburban US, we have this problem where the trash buckets are placed at the end of the driveway. Even if your property line goes all the way to the street (mine does but not all do), the sidewalk is a public right of way and so, of course, is the street. If somebody stands on the street and sifts through your trash, they haven't trespassed. But if they make a mess it's still the homeowners responsibility to clean it up! So, although it's not a trespass from a legal perspective, it causes the same typ
  • Was the man attempting to jack the vehicle a large man, with an Austrian accent? Muttering about people trying to kill him?
  • What is the difference between an unauthorized pedestrian and squatter? Perhaps California eviction laws should apply.
  • "unauthorized pedestrian"? How uncaring and bigoted. That's an Undocumented Rider, just looking for a better life.
  • Grand theft auto charge is to get the police to take action as no one is going out to move a sleeping hobo

  • Once the homeless person was in the car, it should have driven him to the police station (or donut shop, if closer) to be arrested.

  • A very convenient location for the arrest, given that the LAPD detention center is just across the street. Waymo operators should have just driven the car to it. I am sure they'll put this in an episode of " The Rookie"

  • It's rather a shame that this homeless man did not succeed in stealing the car. It would be one less driverless taxi (read "automated traffic hazard and pedestrian killing machine") on the street mindlessly running over people, interfering with emergency vehicles, and the like.

  • Announce this is your final destination and drive into ocean. One way to deal with homeless problem.
    • Homelessness is an equal opportunity affliction. Currently, there are over 10,000 people in Santa Clara County. Many of these people are blue collar workers who keep things going. Many of the others have disabilities...you fucking asshole.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close