Woman Arrested After Blocking Delivery Robot to Protest Job Displacements (abc13.com) 159
A Philadelphia newscast reports on a grey-haired lady who allegedly refused to move out of the path of a delivery robot as a form of protest because "I know they're taking the jobs of human delivery workers."
She was arrested, but says her actions were protected speech: According to police, Marvin repeatedly blocked the robot's path and ignored multiple commands from officers to move... Marvin said she was protesting the use of delivery robots because she believes they are replacing human workers.... "I have been protesting them whenever I saw them by standing in front of them and preventing them from going forward," Marvin said...
Marvin said she has confronted delivery robots on multiple occasions... Ashley Baldwin of West Philadelphia said she witnessed one of those encounters. "I actually thought the robot hit her, so my original question was, 'Are you OK? Did the robot hit you?' And she said, 'No, I have to stop this. They're taking over the world,'" Baldwin said.
Asked whether she plans to continue protesting the robots, Marvin said she does.
She was charged with disorderly conduct.
Uber did not respond to their request for a comment.
She was arrested, but says her actions were protected speech: According to police, Marvin repeatedly blocked the robot's path and ignored multiple commands from officers to move... Marvin said she was protesting the use of delivery robots because she believes they are replacing human workers.... "I have been protesting them whenever I saw them by standing in front of them and preventing them from going forward," Marvin said...
Marvin said she has confronted delivery robots on multiple occasions... Ashley Baldwin of West Philadelphia said she witnessed one of those encounters. "I actually thought the robot hit her, so my original question was, 'Are you OK? Did the robot hit you?' And she said, 'No, I have to stop this. They're taking over the world,'" Baldwin said.
Asked whether she plans to continue protesting the robots, Marvin said she does.
She was charged with disorderly conduct.
Uber did not respond to their request for a comment.
Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
The robots are operated by a mega corp thereby making them more important than you.
Re: (Score:2)
The robots are operated by a mega corp thereby making them more important than you.
And they can't be calling the police every time they are blocked so obviously the robots need some way of clearing their own path...
Re:Precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Precedent (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure blocking the robot is even illegal in a public place
At least in this instance, it is. Under PA state law, personal delivery robots (like the one in the article) are legally classified as pedestrians with all the same legal rights as a human pedestrian. Both are allowed to be there on the sidewalk. Neither are allowed to prevent the other from reaching their destinations. If a human does that to another human it would be illegal detainment.
Re: (Score:2)
It was bought, sadly, mostly by either FedEx or UPS, I forgot which. Because while I don't care about the human vs robot debate (I wish I had robot deliveries because the human drivers are basically 50/50 to me), I am disappointed in how lax they made the law and how much they left up to PennDOT to just figure out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not saddled with the costs of employing humans to do the work, you can certainly afford to come up with something that can operate in the damn road.
They're legally allowed to operate on the road as well. So, it's mostly just up to whether or not they designed the robot to actually handle roads. The type in question, however, is not designed for roads, only travels about 1-2 miles from it's origin, is pretty small and compact, and is better than a human delivery in every way.
Humans should not be forced into a life of doing mindless, repetitive "work" in order to afford to live. If you have a problem with robots doing the work, then your problem is actua
Re: (Score:2)
Humans should not be forced into a life of doing mindless, repetitive "work" in order to afford to live.
To this I agree, but it would also be much better to have the people to whom these robots are delivering to make the short walk to pick up (or even better: eat on location) their food on their own, instead of continuing their overly sedentary unhealthy lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that the people requesting the delivery are capable of walking that distance. Most probably are, but as the population ages a significant number aren't. Depending on what you mean by "a short walk", I wouldn't be. Curbs are a significant problem for me, and a block is a very long distance. I still manage a flight of stairs several times a day, but in the last couple of years I've started to need stairs that are narrow enough for me to hold onto the handrails on both sides. OTOH, my sis
Re: (Score:2)
Well said Charlie! Getting old is not much fun, physically. Many don't make allowances for that. My knees are complaining enough days now that I'm going to look into the new powered exoskeletons in a few years. Still early days for them, but they show promise.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the robot won't spit in my soda and get caught on camera doing it. If your only skill is deliver person, you are fucked anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans should not be forced into a life of doing mindless, repetitive "work" in order to afford to live. If you have a problem with robots doing the work, then your problem is actually with capitalism and society, not the robots.
I agree, but until we have fully automated space communism ala Star Trek, people still need money to live, and sometimes delivery driver is the only job you can get. If a robot takes that job, you aren't eating.
Re: (Score:2)
If you gave everyone free power and a device that makes any food or item on request, those same people will just bitch that they didn't get REAL food. They would cry how they are being oppressed and how people that are contributing to society are unfairly getting better treatment.
Remember, that synthesizer on Star Trek didn't produce food that was as tasty as the real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The type in question, however, is not designed for roads, only travels about 1-2 miles from it's origin, is pretty small and compact, and is better than a human delivery in every way.
So, how'd you feel if other businesses took the same approach? Let's clutter up the sidewalk with plumbers, electricians and other tradesman riding around in little vehicles that can't go in the road. It wouldn't be long before someone says exactly the same thing I just said for the food delivery companies: if you want to run a business, there's inescapable overhead costs, with one of them being the purchase of vehicles that can legally operate on the roadways.
If you have a problem with robots doing the work, then your problem is actually with capitalism and society, not the robots.
That's an entirely separate issue. I'm not g
Re: (Score:2)
Delivery people have different reasons for taking the job
They need money to live.
it's hella dumb to think that capitalist society is what keeps them from designing buildings or painting masterpieces or building flying cars instead
Well, capitalism certainly doesn't foster any of that either.
Re: (Score:2)
The sidewalks absolutely should not become a commons to be plundered for every tech bro's get-rich-quick-scheme.
Sidewalks are an integral part of every cities transportation infrastructure. Try explaining otherwise to shop owners who take deliveries and welcome customers through their front doors.
On the other hand, us car drivers would gladly accept that space as an additional parking/driving lane.
Re: (Score:2)
It was foretold: you gonna have to answer to the Coca Cola company!
https://youtu.be/DUAK7t3Lf8s?t... [youtu.be]
Not sure how this is a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, they might not do it automatically, but would basically have to if you wanted to press charges because it would be detainment, unlawful restraint, or potentially even false imprisonment - which are also much bigger offenses. Otherwise, this women was "making unreasonable noise" and/or "creating a hazardous/physically offensive condition with no legitimate purpose" so disorderly conduct is the right call.
If you want to protest the use of a delivery robot? Cool. Do it at the *business* using the robot
Re: (Score:2)
Which whatever?
Suppose you had knowledge that the robot was helping commit a crime? Let's say the robot was delivering a gun to a thief, who later kills a 7/11 employee and flees. Should you really be travelling all the way to the HQ of Amazon or whatever the delivery company is to "protest"? Shouldn't you be doi
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you had knowledge that the robot was helping commit a crime?
Call the cops and let them deal with it.
Let's say the robot was delivering a gun to a thief, who later kills a 7/11 employee and flees.
One: stupid concept.
Two: not my problem.
Three: would expose a muuuuch bigger issue overall than this single incident (and it wouldn't have anything to do with the robots).
Should you really be traveling all the way to the HQ of Amazon or whatever the delivery company is to "protest"?
Seeing as the delivery robot had to come from somewhere relatively close-by...it most likely isn't Amazon, but yes. They only have a delivery range of 1-2 miles.
Separately, back to your gun example, delivering a gun in this manner is highly illegal so no company would be doing it. It would be some so
Re: (Score:2)
You comment would make picket lines illegal. This is something that I've heard claimed before, but I don't believe it's true.
OTOH, I agree that this appears to be useless grandstanding...though I suppose one could argue that it's utility is attracting public notice to the perceived problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You comment would make picket lines illegal.
No. Because the goal of a picket line isn't to physically stop people from crossing the picket line and it becomes illegal if they try to do so - hence why the police will sometimes do extra protect of scab workers choosing to do so, if tense enough of a situation. It's just considered extremely rude to cross the picket line.
Re: (Score:2)
Rude? Nah. I never considered it rude. I've been the picket person. It's an inherently political act and they obviously didn't agree with it. That's fine. They didn't have to support me in my bargaining with my employer.
Of course, we were hoping to guilt everyone into not shopping at our employer but being a dick about it may just cost the company a customer and that's really counter productive as an employee that presumable wants the employer to give me a raise and continue to employ me.
Re: (Score:2)
Rude? Nah. I never considered it rude.
That's fine, but most of society would agree it's rude if not worse.
It's an inherently political act
While they are intertwined with political power, legislation, and class dynamics more often than not, they are usually not inherently political.
Re: (Score:2)
most of society would agree it's rude if not worse.
With some exceptions*
Re: (Score:2)
Your or my labor dispute isn't the general public's problem. I'm all for labor unions to go on strike. I've done it myself. I don't expect anyone else to care though and I sure as heck don't expect them to make any sort of sacrifice on my behalf. That's silly.
Besides, being rude isn't illegal. Feel free to be upset when I don't care about YOUR financial problems. I definitely don't expect your sympathy when I'm having them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect anyone else to care though and I sure as heck don't expect them to make any sort of sacrifice on my behalf. That's silly.
Great. However, most average people don't think that like. Especially for those that have never been a part of a union or a strike.
Besides, being rude isn't illegal.
Never said it was. It just is what it is.
You are focusing too much on personal experience and a part that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you do, or do not, consider it rude. Most of society sees it as a rude (again, with exceptions) or potentially dangerous (if they turn volatile and violent, but that hasn't really happened in a while).
Re: (Score:2)
As someone that has done a picket line, being a union worker, we were directly told not to block customers from entering the store we were picketing. Honestly, us workers KNEW the customers anyway. Often times it was some lady that just wanted to buy some milk to feed her child breakfast. They would apologize for crossing the picket line and we would say, don't worry about it, we understand, feed your child.
Picket line can't block legal access to places. That's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between an organised protest and being directly targeted and hindered by a single person. If someone didn't let you move from where you were there would be not just disorderly conduct, but actually multiple crimes that apply including false imprisonment (which doesn't require you to use walls or bars to prevent someone from moving). Heck in Louisiana someone was found guilty of false imprisonment simply due to what they said creating a false pretext that had the person waiting for the w
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, clearly. You see the "mostly peaceful" rio...ahem protesting, don't ya? Those buildings clearly are setting themselves on fire (bad wiring) and the glass windows...well, sometimes they just break. Can't be helped. So bizarre, I know.
I'm sure if they burn enough of the city down, that will definitely make funding magically appear.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they arrested her for not following police orders. It's the classic excuse they use when there is no actual crime, but they want to arrest you anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The police orders would have to be lawful and reasonable in the first place for refusing to follow them to be crime. Usually they attempt to illegally arrest you and then charge you with resisting arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in the moment you can't really argue the legality of it. If you disobey, the police beat the shit out of you and arrest you anyway. At best you might get some cash down the line, but even that requires resources and luck.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a law in that state that says robots are allowed to use the sidewalks. She was purposely doing this stupid stunt with the intention of disrupting lawful activities. All the police wanted was for her to move the fuck out of the way. She refused, so she got arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
If she tried this shit with a person, that person would be legally allowed to defend themselves from her illegal detainment. I wish the robot would of had a tazer on it, just for nutjobs like this lady.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair that's basically what a protest is. A denial of service attack on a physical space.
Re: (Score:2)
protest /pr-tst, pr-, prtst/
intransitive verb
To express a strong objection to (something).
"protest a job assignment."
To participate in a public demonstration in opposition to (something): synonym: object.
"Thousands protested the election fraud."
Similar: object To promise or affirm earnestly, as after being doubted.
None of that says to block people from legal activi
Re: (Score:2)
If someone stopped you from going on your way, they are illegally detaining you. That's definitely a crime. More so if you happen to be a white woman.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a stupid statement, it is a crime to impede the flow of traffic. It would be a crime to prevent your apartment door from closing on purpose. The impeding a non-living object issues is hardly ever about the non-living object. It is about the violation of rights of others that occurs in the process. By impeding the robot, she is impeding the right of the company and their customers to do legal trade activities.
They're not taking any jobs... (Score:2)
Those are side hustles. Gigs at the most. /s
That's a serious crime (Score:5, Interesting)
Interfering with commerce is one of the worst crimes you can commit in this country.
(1877 B&O Railroad strike, 1886 Bay View Massacre, the Ludlow massacre, Bloody Friday of 1934, ...)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with commerce. If the robot were a normal person the same would apply, actually probably worse would apply.
Re: That's a serious crime (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It has all the same legal rights and protections as a human pedestrian, so it does have merit. Technically, per the law, she should have been charged with worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, per the law, she should have been charged with worse.
I suspect this is wrong. Her behavior doesn't seem to qualify as unlawful restraint [state.pa.us] because it didn't involve either fear of bodily harm or involuntary servitude. She maybe could be charged with obstructing a sidewalk under Title 18 Section 5507 of state law, but that's a third degree misdemeanor like disorderly conduct is.
Re: (Score:2)
There is at least 2 or 3 other options they could have used.
Re: (Score:3)
... such as?
I provided checkable citations, including why a claim of "illegal detainment" (the usual US terms are unlawful arrest and unlawful restraint; the name of the crime varies by jurisdiction) does not apply here. You have not.
Re: (Score:2)
Though a good lawyer could still make the case for unlawful restraint, the most obvious and appropriate would be simply one tier down in the ladder: false imprisonment [state.pa.us].
Re: (Score:2)
No, a good lawyer would explain why unlawful restraint doesn't apply in this case.
Section 2903 seems written such that "another" means a natural person (someone who has "liberty", as a robot generally does not, because it is chattel). PA law classifies delivery robots as pedestrians for the purpose of Title 75 of state law, not as people or "another" under Title 18. Do you have some precedent that says false imprisonment can be committed against a robot?
Re: (Score:2)
Title 75 merely covers vehicles, traffic rules, licensing, road rules and some other stuff - including the robot classification and requirements. Title 75 has *nothing* to do with crimes committed by a pedestrian on another pedestrian (or vehicle) and that is where Title 18 comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Title 18 is about crimes, yes, and that's why Title 75's definition of "pedestrian" to include delivery robots doesn't affect what Title 18 calls a crime. Title 75 defines traffic offenses, so now you're arguing that this was more like a ticketed civil infraction. Your original claim was that a more serious crime would apply, and you've serially failed to support that.
Re: (Score:2)
Title 18 is about crimes, yes, and that's why Title 75's definition of "pedestrian" to include delivery robots doesn't affect what Title 18 calls a crime.
That's not how it works. Title 18 does not need to also define anything about robots.
Title 75 defines traffic offenses, so now you're arguing that this was more like a ticketed civil infraction.
No.
Your original claim was that a more serious crime would apply, and you've serially failed to support that.
Could apply, if they wanted to. I've supported it just fine. The fact that you don't understand basic concepts of how the law works doesn't change any of that. Ultimately, the rule of lenity would give the edge to the defendant anyway so they went with disorderly conduct because that's what will absolutely stick without risking a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with commerce. If the robot were a normal person the same would apply, actually probably worse would apply.
It's not a person though, so that's a dumb argument. Hitting a rock with a hammer would be a crime if it was a person as well.
Re: That's a serious crime (Score:2)
I stepped on an ant, arrest me. Because an ant has more agency than a robot.
Poor robot (Score:2)
what law (Score:2)
What law says delivery robot has right of way over a person?
Re: (Score:2)
No law says that, just like no law says you as a pedestrian have the right of way over other pedestrians; it says who must yield the right of way. Regardless of who has the right of way, neither you nor professors are generally allowed to block other pedestrians from proceeding down a sidewalk. In Pennsylvania, it doesn't matter if the other pedestrian is a delivery robot.
Faking it... (Score:2)
When you're a grey-haired woman that looks a little old, you can get away with pretending you didn't hear, or that you are a little confused.
and you can still say your message.
Homeless camping (Score:2)
Seems like this clearly falls under the same rule against homeless camping the Supreme Court recently decided.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta keep up.
They are urban campers.
Your neighbors without homes.
It's not their fault they continue to double down on poor decision making and have also managed to burn every bridge they ever had. It's society's fault. Clearly. Everything should be free, damn it!
Hope I meet her in Philly some day (Score:2)
I'd love to offer to buy her a drink.
No slashdotters, of course, have ever had non-degree-requiring jobs. (Except for me, that is.)
Re:Good start (Score:4, Insightful)
Women should not even be allowed to drive.
The mullahs told you that?
Re:Good start (Score:4, Insightful)
No, all the bible thumpers did.
Re:Good start (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good start (Score:4, Funny)
Both groups will vehemently disagree with the above assessment :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When the Cristian coalition freed Afghan women, they were allowed to drive. Guess what happened when the Muslim Taliban took power again...
Why do you dumb as fuck Muslims even bother trying to pretend the 2 groups are the same?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the Cristian coalition
What is this "Cristian coalition" you're babbling about?
And who let "ze Talibans" back to power?
Who cut an ran? [cnn.com]
Oh, Trump? What a strange thing, I thought he was putting the "moslins" in their place.
Re: (Score:2)
he did...in his mind. which is where he resides mostly. Reality[tm] is an annoyance he chooses to ignore quite often.
Re: (Score:2)
Pity the US political environment allows him to.
Re:Good start (Score:4, Informative)
So you don't even deny the fact it's only Muslims that ban women from driving.
Only Afghans ban women from driving.
All other Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, allow women to drive.
98% of Muslim women live where they can legally drive.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't even deny the fact it's only Muslims that ban women from driving.
Only Afghans ban women from driving.
All other Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, allow women to drive.
98% of Muslim women live where they can legally drive.
Yes, but not to park.
Re: (Score:2)
All other Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, allow women to drive.
Yes, in Saudi Arabia women are allowed to drive, but the men still tell them where they can go (and women can be penalized if they disobey their husbands).
Re: leftist "thinking" (Score:2)
Moron, trump has already cut and run in Iran.
Re: leftist "thinking" (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, trump has already let them know. He literally stated on the Iranian war just yesterday that if
“America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so.
And he seriously said that after his many years of work to dismantle all of the US alliances and embrace all of the enemies of the US, a dumb, short-sighted policy, proved outright harmful to the interests of the US, which directly lead to the disaster that was the Iranian war.
Trump has cut and run on Iran, and what's left is the last stage - acceptance of the humiliating defeat, which trump brought on the US alone.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump... [rawstory.com]
But the most ridiculous thing is that for his policy failures the shitgibbon-in-chief is still blaming anyone but himself - blaming Ukraine for defending itself against aggression, blaming an oil and distillates shortage he himself created on Zelensky, blaming his weakness and corruption, exploited by putin, and his impotence to bring putin to the negotiating table on Europe "funding the war", which it isn't.
https://truthsocial.com/@realD... [truthsocial.com]
trump is a poseur with no substance, small wonder *all* of his policies have failed spectacularly.
And yes, he's lost in Iran and has effectively cut and run since June. What a moron, just like all other maggots out there who believe his bullshit.
But at least he got rich on the market manipulations, what have you to show for yourself from all that?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Iran suddenly start selling their oil again?
Why, yes, they did. They're selling their diesel to you via russia, allowed by trump himself.
Can they import goods now?
Of course.
Even Iran's leaders are begging Trump to make a deal.
[citation sorely needed]
Not from the current administration, which has been caught lying about this 100 times since February.
Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
You could read it that way. You could also read it as a message to the Israeli voters that if they don't choose Bibi, they'll have to deal with Iran on their own. It's not like Iran's aggressiveness towards Israel was specific to Bibi being in power.
Re: leftist "thinking" (Score:2)
You could read it your way only if you assume that Iran is not a serious enough problem for the USA, so much so that it can be allowed to fester after being antagonized to 11.
If that is true, then a) we understand why the USA has cut and run already and b) there must be some other reason for poking this anthill and it isn't the nukes, the support for Israel, or whatever.
And as an aside, it is an assault on the freedom of the Israelis to practice democracy and freedom.
All in the face of what the US official
Re: (Score:2)
What anyone *wants* is their opinion. Here we're laughing at the loser trump, who cut and run in Iran already.
And at his dumb followers, who get nicely shafted by letting trump profit from Iranian diesel sales to them.
Re: Good start (Score:2)
You seem confused, what's a "Christian country"?
All countries where women drive are nonreligious, with constitutional separation of religion and state.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to willingly ignore how secular countries became such. Hint: it was not thanks to organized Christianity.
Re: Good start (Score:2)
What?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to say that civilized countries are non-religious.
Yes, that's right.
Re: Good start (Score:5, Insightful)
No Sharia Law for the West.
I don't know. Telling women what they can't do with their own bodies while writing "In God We Trust" on the money certainly sounds like the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the leftists sure do support the "totally non-leftists" who want Sharia Law.
Support is not absolute. For example I fully support your right to free speech, but I will still punch your stupid fucking face if I ever meet you. Your level of inability to think deserves it.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country tells everybody what they can't do with their own bodies, such as selling them into slavery or shooting someone.
Errr no. Most western countries do very much allow yourself to shoot yourself or go fuck whatever you want. You most definitely can sell your body for slavery. What is illegal is for someone else to enslave you. It's also illegal to shoot someone else.
Normally I would say you don't know how laws work in other countries, but in this case you need to start with understanding basic logic first.
Re: (Score:2)
*Full, nationwide bans*? No. But the Soviet Union banned women from many types of driving (as "arduous and hazardous"), such as driving subways, long-haul freight, various kinds of heavy construction machinery, etc. These were inherited and retained post-Soviet states, including Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, though the lists of jobs has dropped over time. Even today, in Belarus (where Lukaschenko talks up the nation's foundational Christian values), under Article 262, women can't drive a firetruck or ope
Re: (Score:2)
As for Islamic countries, there's only two that ban women from driving: Afghanistan and Turkmenistan - both de facto / arbitrary / adminstrative bans rather than official bans (e.g. refusing to issue/renew licenses, requiring guardians for long-distance travel, or things of that nature). Saudi Arabia revoked their ban in 2018. And Iran has always allowed women to drive (though they have to cover their hair while driving).
Re: Good start (Score:2)
When was that, source?
Re: (Score:2)
You should not be allowed to sit in front of a computer. Or a phone.
Re: Good start (Score:2)
Better known as Kuche, kitche, kinder in trad Aryan.
Re: Good start (Score:2)
Kirche, autocarrot!
Re:I'll play Keyboard Lawyer... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's pretty simple. Both are legally permitted to use the sidewalks. Neither are legally permitted to block the other from continuing to their destination. If the robot were a human, it would have been illegal detainment. She's lucky she got something basically meaningless by comparison, but she definitely deserved to be arrested.
This is what the cool kids call good trouble (Score:2)
It's not that she deserves to be arrested it's that getting arrested is the point.
In particular she was trying to get your attention. Not mine I'm painfully aware of the effects of widespread automation over the last 50 years and how it has completely devastated the middle class. She was doing it for your benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the person who ordered that delivery bot is disabled and really needed that delivery? Fuck them, right?
Re:God bless.. (Score:5, Informative)
You'll notice how the police basically do nothing to drivers who block pavements impeding pedestrians. They really do not generally care about such things. But if a pedestrian blocks something from a megacorp, well that's a different matter. Megacorps first, drivers second, and people using their legs will always come a distant third.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt the robot called police, and I am sure it will not testify at her trial. Its audio-video recordings might be admitted as evidence, which would be much more convincing about what happened than a person's testimony. Why did you ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Its audio-video recordings might be admitted as evidence,
Aieee! Flock cameras! The surveillance state! Fascism is at our doorstep!
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we can totally use the word retarded. And this is definitely retarded behavior. Shame the robot didn't have a little r2d2 tazer device. It was, after all, being illegally detained.