▲ 598 ▼ Judge finds evidence that Tesla, Musk knew about Autopilot defect (www.reuters.com) submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world 41 comments fedilink hide all child comments A Florida judge found "reasonable evidence" that Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk and other managers knew the automaker's vehicles had a defective Autopilot system but still allowed the cars to be driven unsafely, according to a ruling.
[+] Kbobabob@lemmy.world -31 points 2 years ago (14 children) a crime Any crime? What crime are you talking about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 48 points 2 years ago (12 children) There's a case to be made for criminal negligence resulting in loss of life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago Yes but those were poor people. So it doesn't count. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Well, maybe, but did you forget that he's rich? permalink fedilink source parent [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (9 children) It's a textbook case of what could trigger the depraved heart homicide rule. The idea is that, in the case of someone knowingly and intentionally doing or allowing something extremely likely to cause serious injury or death, the "depraved indifference" to human life can be treated as intent to kill and elevate a negligent manslaughter charge to murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (8 children) Do we have probability numbers yet for likelihood of accident? And if so, would that satisfy "extremely likely?" The letter of the law can be fickle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (7 children) When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent [+] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 48 points 2 years ago (12 children) There's a case to be made for criminal negligence resulting in loss of life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago Yes but those were poor people. So it doesn't count. permalink fedilink source parent [–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Well, maybe, but did you forget that he's rich? permalink fedilink source parent [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (9 children) It's a textbook case of what could trigger the depraved heart homicide rule. The idea is that, in the case of someone knowingly and intentionally doing or allowing something extremely likely to cause serious injury or death, the "depraved indifference" to human life can be treated as intent to kill and elevate a negligent manslaughter charge to murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (8 children) Do we have probability numbers yet for likelihood of accident? And if so, would that satisfy "extremely likely?" The letter of the law can be fickle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (7 children) When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago Yes but those were poor people. So it doesn't count. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Well, maybe, but did you forget that he's rich? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (9 children) It's a textbook case of what could trigger the depraved heart homicide rule. The idea is that, in the case of someone knowingly and intentionally doing or allowing something extremely likely to cause serious injury or death, the "depraved indifference" to human life can be treated as intent to kill and elevate a negligent manslaughter charge to murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (8 children) Do we have probability numbers yet for likelihood of accident? And if so, would that satisfy "extremely likely?" The letter of the law can be fickle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (7 children) When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (8 children) Do we have probability numbers yet for likelihood of accident? And if so, would that satisfy "extremely likely?" The letter of the law can be fickle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (7 children) When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (7 children) When you have millions of units on the road, a one in a billion chance of the error killing someone on a drive is pretty much a guarantee. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children) I don't know if that's the reasoning that will hold up in court. Would a judge say a 1 in a billion chance is "extremely likely? That reasoning would apply to all cars in general wouldn't it? Driving is potentially dangerous no matter what car you drive. People are guaranteed to die in car accidents everyday just by sheer volume and that would be true if Tesla didn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just dubious of getting a conviction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's not that people die crashing them, or even that a manufacturing/software defect causes the deaths. It's that Tesla knew that there was a software error that would almost certainly cause somebody to die, and intentionally chose not to address the issues for financial reasons. That's textbook depraved indifference. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) Reminds me of that cost of a recall calculation scene from Fight Club. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) And that's exactly why the depraved indifference rule exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are there any famous examples of that being used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Schlitterbahn waterpark is a fairly recent high-profile example. The designers of the water coaster and co-owner of the park were charged with murder because they knew the ride was lethally dangerous and kept it running. In fact, they'd paid off people hurt in other near-death accidents to keep quiet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out. permalink fedilink source parent