Woman sues Lyft, says driver gang-raped her at gunpoint – and calls for app safety measures we can't believe aren't already in place

Re: If the accusation would have any merit

How do you know that "Given that her statements are true"?

Has it gone to court yet?

Re: If the accusation would have any merit

"The failings of US law enforcement and judiciary aside, kidnapping + serial rape under threat of a firearm is quite an accusation" ... "Especially when the one accused is not "someone who jumped you in the dark" , but easily identifyable"

The problem with rape is proving it. I know it doesn't jive with all the false accusation stories you've heard, but most rape cases devolve into a he-said she-said issue that puts the victim at a disadvantage. Without multiple witnesses willing to testify, far more often than not, rapists tend to go free.

Perhaps you were thinking of murder, not rape?

Re: If the accusation would have any merit

Whether this particular lawsuit, given the number of question marks it raises, is the best way to go about it?

It probably is. The criminal law system favours the offenders because they have to be found guilty "...beyond reasonable doubt ...".

The civil law system does not have this restriction so she might at least get compensation. Like with the O. J. Simpson case; He beat the rap on the criminal case, then get nailed later in the civil case.

PS:

It should be common knowledge that the Metrics- and NPM-saturated police "services" we have today will simply not bother to investigate even obvious cases when their scheduling AI deems that the 'Force KPI's' are unlikely to be fulfilled. Law Enforcement is *not* part of the current police KPI-set.

Re: If the accusation would have any merit

" Sad statistics prove that cases like this where the assailants can be identified tend to have a rather less happy outcome than a hangover and a bill that's higher than expected for the victim."

Sad statistics prove that around 3-5% of such accusations are demonstrably false / malicious, yet far too many men* faced with stories about rape immediately jump into "what if she's lying?" i.e. victim-blaming mode.

and yes, being gang-raped is "rather less happy outcome than a hangover and a bill that's higher than expected"

*I would say 'people' but it's predominantly men

Re: prove innocence

I would expect that Lyft, on being approached by the police / FBI, should have immediately turned over every bit of information about (a) the driver and his background checks (b) GPS trail for the night in question (c) all available GPS traces for other routes the driver drove and (d) any GPS traces about the complainants' past rides.

Failure to do so immediately could have, and perhaps has, compromised the police / FBIs ability to build a case that is not based solely on the victim's testimony (which has a low probability of clearing the 'beyond reasonable doubt'). For example take DNA samples from under alleged perps' fingernails, traffic camera recordings for the route etc etc. A lot of this type of evidence needs to be secured immediately or is gone forever, hence Lyft's dilly-dallying (to protect their own image) could have destroyed any possibility of a successful prosecution.

Re: prove innocence

"If the above is true, I'm assuming the first thing she wants is for Lyft to cooperate fully with crime enforcement"

This is the part that really confuses me. Lots of people commit crimes, and most of them have a job of some sort. The fact that a company employs someone who commits a crime does not generally reflect badly on said company. If a doctor steals a bottle of whisky from Tesco, you don't sue the hospital for employing him before that. So why would Lyft not cooperate? One among thousands of low-level workers they don't give a shit about commits a crime, the police ask for information, Lyft say "Here's everything we know about him, he's just some guy we employ and we don't give a shit about him". If he's found not guilty, or not charged at all, they continue to employ him, otherwise they don't.

I know all these so-called gig economy companies tend to be as shitty as they possibly can in pretty much every circumstance, but that's usually in cases where they actually stand to benefit from their shitty behaviour. For something like this, there doesn't appear to be any possible benefit for Lyft. They don't have a problem finding employees, so losing this one guy isn't relevant to them. The absolute best possible outcome is that no-one does anything about it and they have net zero benefit; every other outcome where they face increased police scrutiny, lawsuits, and regulation is a serious negative for them. So I just don't understand their behaviour at all. Have they just spent so much time being shitty to everyone that they forgot to check whether it's actually beneficial to their bottom line first?

Re: Par for the course

You’re going to get bad’uns in every breed, but a company known to be pretty rough and ready with its “hiring” practices (which is basically what the gig model is all about) is statistically more likely to have them. It’s a simple numbers game.

Re: "Doesn't add up."

Dio, with all due respect, the story really doesn't add up:

A bit of digging shows that ( and I'll be careful..)

- The alledged assailant, according to Uber, fulfilled all the qualifications and licenses necessary for operating a taxi in NYC. In other words, he was at least capable/licensed to also drive one of the Yellow Cabs. Which should make him doubly easy to find.

- The purported victim *did* lodge a complaint with Uber the next day, about the bill.. And went through the mill doing the rape kit experience well within the timeframe necessary. And it was found that it had DNA of two males on her clothes. However, the sequence of events as described in the article only emerged after "months of recollection". Traumatic as rape is, I do believe you tend to remember stuff like that rather acutely, rather than months later. Cognitive dissociation is a thing, but the bill and rape kit experience alone should have given acute flashbacks right then, not months later.

- I cannot believe that both NY(C?)PD and the FBI totally failed to investigate a kidnap/rape first category case where the alledged assailant can be easily tracked down for the primary investigation. The rape kit *did* get processed, so any investigation, given the severity of the charges and the ease with which the alleged assailant *should* have been found should have gotten results. It's a detective's wet dream....

- I very much doubt that Lyft would keep any driver in their active pool when the driver in question is subject to a FBI investigation ( and Lyft would have been involved in any FBI investigation, at least for activity/ride logs..). And while they can try to be "innocent" of any dodgyness in their drivers before any act, they sure as hell would be liable after the fact. And a FBI investigation into the activities of one of "their" drivers is a big hint. Ignoring that would have their legal department in a fit big enough to trigger the San Andreas fault. Yet according to the article they did just that.. And allowed a "name change"..

There's more, but the points above alone would have a defense lawyer salivating like an overbred bulldog presented with a side of bacon. So yeah... it "doesn't add up".

Re: "Doesn't add up."

Independent of the merits of the case, which as described should be open and close not least because of the available, telemetry, it's not a secret that the main advantage for these companies is the lack of regulation, which means they can undercut existing services. Unfortunately, the media is at least partly guilty of providing them with free publicity focussing on the convenience and lower cost. Only recently on QI Holly Walsh boasted about relying to get home with Uber no matter what state she was in.

Fundamentally this is a failure of regulation: harmonising the rules in the UK for private hire vehicles and taxi cabs would be easy; as in America would be removing the artificial restriction of taxi licences, which turn it into a restricted trade with not enough capacity when and where required. But we shouldn't overlook our own culpability in continuing to provide PR for these companies.

Back to the case itself: in the US things do get very tricky as soon as crimes cross state lines. Nevertheless, there should still be a case to answer with New York alone if the journey was not as specified.