Uber driver arrested after accidentally shooting teenage passenger

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Eileen Kelley and Doug Phillips - South Florida Sun Sentinel


https://i.imgur.com/aHpo9ZZl.jpg

An Uber driver was arrested after he accidentally shot a teenage passenger Sunday while moving his gun on the seat, police said.

The shooting happened near the Hollywood Police Station, where driver Adrian Harper had stopped to pick up more passengers. Surveillance video shows two passengers racing into the police department for help. The video then shows police and an ambulance coming to the aid of the teen.

Police would not identify the girl who was shot. WPLG-Ch. 10 identified her as Baily Braun, 15, who was riding from Pembroke Pines to Aventura with her boyfriend.

Braun was struck in the ankle and the bullet exited her heel. She was taken to Memorial Regional Hospital.

“I didn’t know I got shot at first,” Braun told WPLG. “When I moved my foot, I just saw blood coming out."

Harper has a concealed carry permit, which makes it lawful for him to have his weapon concealed in the car. However, all gun holders — licensed or not — may transport a gun or another weapon only if it is securely encased, such as in a glove compartment, snapped in a holster, or in a gun case, said Will Farrugia, a firearms instructor with the Florida Firearms Training in Deerfield Beach.

Harper told police the firearm was near his left leg on the seat of the car. He said he was moving it toward the door to secure it in his holster when it went off.

“He advised that he did not realize he had his finger inside the trigger guard and accidentally pulled the trigger,” hitting the girl directly behind him, a police report states.

A passenger, Ebony Collins, told police she heard a loud bang as she loaded things into the trunk of the car. She ran to the Police Department for help.

Harper was arrested, though not booked in jail, on a charge of culpable negligence. He was given a citation to appear in misdemeanor court. But that’s not the only problem. Uber removed Harper’s access to the Uber app.

According to Uber’s terms and conditions, no driver or passenger is allowed to have a gun. In addition, people under age 18 are not allowed to use the ride-hailing service unless accompanied by a guardian. A rider must be at least 18 to have an Uber account and request rides. A driver should decline a ride request if the person requesting is under the age of 18, according to Uber.

“This is deeply troubling and our thoughts are with the rider and her family as she recovers," Uber said in a statement.

[Muddy]

When you accidentally shoot someone your right to own a firearm should be removed.

[DemonGeminiX]

When you accidentally shoot someone your right to own a firearm should be removed.

No. You should be punished for the crime/incident, but when your debt to society has been sufficiently paid, then your rights should be restored completely.

[lost in melb.]

No. You should be punished for the crime/incident, but when your debt to society has been sufficiently paid, then your rights should be restored completely.

:lol:

[Muddy]

No. You should be punished for the crime/incident, but when your debt to society has been sufficiently paid, then your rights should be restored completely.

I disagree.

[DemonGeminiX]

I disagree.

What you advocate is tyranny.

If society cannot trust a convicted criminal with their rights after a prescribed sentence has been served, then the sentence the convict is serving should be long enough until society feels the convict is sufficiently rehabilitated and trustworthy enough to have his or her rights restored. A criminal sentence should not exist in perpetuity for an honest mistake due to negligence. It's not as if the guy intended to murder the girl with cruelty and malice. There has to be a point where society can forgive a person like this and consider him trustworthy enough to rejoin society as an equal, with his rights fully restored. If not, then there but for the grace of God go you.

[Muddy]

What you advocate is tyranny.

If society cannot trust a convicted criminal with their rights after a prescribed sentence has been served, then the sentence the convict is serving should be long enough until society feels the convict is sufficiently rehabilitated and trustworthy enough to have his or her rights restored. A criminal sentence should not exist in perpetuity for an honest mistake due to negligence. It's not as if the guy intended to murder the girl with cruelty and malice. There has to be a point where society can forgive a person like this and consider him trustworthy enough to rejoin society as an equal, with his rights fully restored. If not, then there but for the grace of God go you.

Not when you shoot someone.. The guys too stupid. Plus, convicted felons cant own firearms anyway so the point is moot.

[DemonGeminiX]

Not when you shoot someone.. The guys too stupid. Plus, convicted felons cant own firearms anyway so the point is moot.

Felons can petition to have their rights restored after a period of time, most often 5 years or more. So no, the point is not moot.

And what about when you hit someone with your car? How long should you lose your license for if the injured person survives? Given it was a mistake and nothing nefarious like driving drunk or intentionally trying to mow someone down?

[Muddy]

Felons can petition to have their rights restored after a period of time, most often 5 years or more. So no, the point is not moot.



Rights being restored does not include the right to bare arms.

[DemonGeminiX]

Rights being restored does not include the right to bare arms.

You stepped in it now.

How does it not include it? The right to keep and bear arms is a Right of the people listed in the Bill of Rights. You know, the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution? Those rights listed in those first 10 Amendments were supposed to be respected and protected by the government. The founding fathers considered those rights to be natural rights, granted to us by a higher power, or by virtue of being American (however you want to look at it). They considered the right to keep and bear arms an essential right that belonged to all of the citizens of this nation, beyond the reach of any government. The last thing they wanted was that right being taken away by the government, because that right gave the citizens the ability to fight the government when it grew tyrannical and no longer respected or protected our rights.

So how exactly is the right to keep and bear arms, one of the most vital and important rights we have, not subject to reinstatement after a person pays his or her debt to society for crimes committed?

[Muddy]

You stepped in it now.

How does it not include it? The right to keep and bear arms is a Right of the people listed in the Bill of Rights. You know, the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution? Those rights listed in those first 10 Amendments were supposed to be respected and protected by the government. The founding fathers considered those rights to be natural rights, granted to us by a higher power, or by virtue of being American (however you want to look at it). They considered the right to keep and bear arms an essential right that belonged to all of the citizens of this nation, beyond the reach of any government. The last thing they wanted was that right being taken away by the government, because that right gave the citizens the ability to fight the government when it grew tyrannical and no longer respected or protected our rights.

So how exactly is the right to keep and bear arms, one of the most vital and important rights we have, not subject to reinstatement after a person pays his or her debt to society for crimes committed?

Your fundamental thoughts are great. I'm just telling you the reality. The right to bare arms is not included with a restoration of rights. (At least in Virginia)

[DemonGeminiX]

Your fundamental thoughts are great. I'm just telling you the reality. The right to bare arms is not included with a restoration of rights. (At least in Virginia)

In that case, Virginia is run by traitors. And they're not my thoughts, they're the fundamental principles under which this nation was founded. Those Bill of Rights, every single one of them, can be traced back to a historical injustice that the colonists faced at the hands of the British. They can also be traced back to historical and modern day injustices that tyrannical governments all over this world inflict on their citizens. The founding fathers were not stupid men. They knew what true freedom was and they knew what a tyrannical government taking away the rights of their citizens looked like. They knew that any government set up with good intentions would eventually lose its way, and it was up to the people to remind it of its limitations and true purpose. And if the government became too far gone to be reminded, it was up to the people to dissolve the government, with force if necessary, and to rebuild it better than it was previously.

[Muddy]

In that case, Virginia is run by traitors.

Georgia is the same way, dude. Restoration of civil rights does not include firearms.

[Muddy]

You need to research this more before going further DGX..


In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

[DemonGeminiX]

You need to research this more before going further DGX..


In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

No, I don't need to research this. I know more about gun laws than you can imagine. The laws passed in 1934 and 1968 are both unconstitutional. The NFA is unconstitutional. The BATF shouldn't exist and any "rules" that they pass are unconstitutional. Any law or rule restricting the ownership or sale of any weapon in the United States is unconstitutional. Any provision in any state constitution stating the state legislatures have the power to limit or legislate the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Any politician pushing for gun control, weak or strong, are traitors to the actual sovereign power of this nation, the people. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people and only the people. Period, end of.

If you can't trust someone with their rights being completely restored after serving a sentence for committing a crime, then maybe the sentence should be longer. This doesn't go to gun ownership, this goes to the ability of the current legal/prison system to effectively rehabilitate a prisoner to become a contributing member of society when released.

It doesn't matter how long a law has existed. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court actually did their job and interpreted Constitutional law the way that the Amendments were intended to be interpreted, if they needed to be interpreted at all (personally, I don't believe they need to be because they're written in plain English, and really what you need to do is look at the circumstances under which they were written to really understand what they truly meant), then any and all gun laws in this nation wouldn't exist at all. The people should have the right to own the deadliest weapons available on this Earth, and no government - federal, state, or local - should have a say in the matter at all... if we're reading the Second Amendment as it was originally intended to be interpreted.

With all that being said, let's get back to the initial point: You want to punish this man for the rest of his life for a negligent discharge, an accident, where he did not intend to hurt anyone, and the injury caused was relatively minor compared to what it could have been. The man did not murder 50 kids with malicious intent. It's not as if he was fighting with the victim in question. It was an unfortunate ACCIDENT. It could have happened to anyone. Sure, it happened because of negligence... you don't transfer a loaded weapon with your finger on the trigger. Maybe he even broke a (unconstitutional) law stating how the weapon should be carried in his vehicle. The shooting was still not intentional nor done out of malice. You don't strip people of their rights permanently over something like this. The punishment you want does not fit the crime.

[Muddy]

No, I don't need to research this. I know more about gun laws than you can imagine. The laws passed in 1934 and 1968 are both unconstitutional. The NFA is unconstitutional. The BATF shouldn't exist and any "rules" that they pass are unconstitutional. Any law or rule restricting the ownership or sale of any weapon in the United States is unconstitutional. Any provision in any state constitution stating the state legislatures have the power to limit or legislate the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Any politician pushing for gun control, weak or strong, are traitors to the actual sovereign power of this nation, the people. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people and only the people. Period, end of.

If you can't trust someone with their rights being completely restored after serving a sentence for committing a crime, then maybe the sentence should be longer. This doesn't go to gun ownership, this goes to the ability of the current legal/prison system to effectively rehabilitate a prisoner to become a contributing member of society when released.

It doesn't matter how long a law has existed. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court actually did their job and interpreted Constitutional law the way that the Amendments were intended to be interpreted, if they needed to be interpreted at all (personally, I don't believe they need to be because they're written in plain English, and really what you need to do is look at the circumstances under which they were written to really understand what they truly meant), then any and all gun laws in this nation wouldn't exist at all. The people should have the right to own the deadliest weapons available on this Earth, and no government - federal, state, or local - should have a say in the matter at all... if we're reading the Second Amendment as it was originally intended to be interpreted.

With all that being said, let's get back to the initial point: You want to punish this man for the rest of his life for a negligent discharge, an accident, where he did not intend to hurt anyone, and the injury caused was relatively minor compared to what it could have been. The man did not murder 50 kids with malicious intent. It's not as if he was fighting with the victim in question. It was an unfortunate ACCIDENT. It could have happened to anyone. Sure, it happened because of negligence... you don't transfer a loaded weapon with your finger on the trigger. Maybe he even broke a (unconstitutional) law stating how the weapon should be carried in his vehicle. The shooting was still not intentional nor done out of malice. You don't strip people of their rights permanently over something like this. The punishment you want does not fit the crime.

Demon.. The laws exist. Thats it. The point is moot. You get a felony and it will apply to you as well. No amount of arguing will change that when the hangman comes calling. The right to bare arms is not restored when you apply for your civil rights to be reinstated. You can argue constitutional law all day and it doesnt matter. The law is on the books and you dont get around it with Patrick Henry speeches.

[fricnjay]

No, I don't need to research this. I know more about gun laws than you can imagine. The laws passed in 1934 and 1968 are both unconstitutional. The NFA is unconstitutional. The BATF shouldn't exist and any "rules" that they pass are unconstitutional. Any law or rule restricting the ownership or sale of any weapon in the United States is unconstitutional. Any provision in any state constitution stating the state legislatures have the power to limit or legislate the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Any politician pushing for gun control, weak or strong, are traitors to the actual sovereign power of this nation, the people. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people and only the people. Period, end of.

If you can't trust someone with their rights being completely restored after serving a sentence for committing a crime, then maybe the sentence should be longer. This doesn't go to gun ownership, this goes to the ability of the current legal/prison system to effectively rehabilitate a prisoner to become a contributing member of society when released.

It doesn't matter how long a law has existed. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court actually did their job and interpreted Constitutional law the way that the Amendments were intended to be interpreted, if they needed to be interpreted at all (personally, I don't believe they need to be because they're written in plain English, and really what you need to do is look at the circumstances under which they were written to really understand what they truly meant), then any and all gun laws in this nation wouldn't exist at all. The people should have the right to own the deadliest weapons available on this Earth, and no government - federal, state, or local - should have a say in the matter at all... if we're reading the Second Amendment as it was originally intended to be interpreted.

With all that being said, let's get back to the initial point: You want to punish this man for the rest of his life for a negligent discharge, an accident, where he did not intend to hurt anyone, and the injury caused was relatively minor compared to what it could have been. The man did not murder 50 kids with malicious intent. It's not as if he was fighting with the victim in question. It was an unfortunate ACCIDENT. It could have happened to anyone. Sure, it happened because of negligence... you don't transfer a loaded weapon with your finger on the trigger. Maybe he even broke a (unconstitutional) law stating how the weapon should be carried in his vehicle. The shooting was still not intentional nor done out of malice. You don't strip people of their rights permanently over something like this. The punishment you want does not fit the crime.

I agree