News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it disheartening to engage a conversation where the other party moves the goalposts at every opportunity while claiming moral superiority? They just invoked the Proud Boys as a precedent setting group as if that's something to be aspired to.
They're not moving goal posts. They're repeatedly making the same point over several examples.
It's not complicity when a customer uses your product outside the ToS. It was also suggested up the chain here that the person renting and picking up the vehicle may not be disclosing their employment nor the use in raids.
If either of these are not the case, or if Uhaul takes no measures to prevent this in the future, then Uhaul is complicit.
Oh I wasn't referring to WeirdGoesPro themselves. I replied to them because they had a similarly circular conversation with MushuChupacabra as I did.
I agree. The employment and purposes of the individual renting the trucks were unlikely to have been disclosed while the vehicle was being rented.
I think that falls more to complacency than complicity, but I see your point. As I've written in a few other comments here, I'm not sure what 'measures' could be implemented by any rental company to prevent undisclosed use of their vehicles.
There are only two routes I can think of to effect this situation. Some reactionary method; barring the listed customer from future rentals if the service becomes aware of the misuse, maybe install dash cameras in some tamper resistant way. Or a preventative method; ending rentals entirely and pivot to a full service moving company.
If you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it - it's why I asked the question in the first place, and so far haven't seen an answer to it.
They wouldn't really have a way if preventing this from happening altogether. So you have to increase the risk to the lessee for bad behavior.
Point of sale is the only place they ID the customer. At that point you determine whether the lease is to a legal entity (Gov/corp) or Private. If the trucks were contracted to DHS or a contractor then this is moot and fuck 'em. If they were contracted as a private lease to an agent concealing the purpose then a couple options could be:
I'm unsure if Uhaul is franchised, but in that case there is less clarity in the options. Corporate could pressure them depending on contract language.
End if the day, unless it is seen as an economic threat to the brand, nothing will likely be done.
Note: i don't usually think that punitive action is useful but it's all these bastards know.
Indeed. I'm sure there is already language in the terms against driving the vehicles with people in the cargo space. Breaking this could result in some penalty. If the company found, of course.
Unfortunately, if they were to bundle up dozens of these individuals renting trucks on behalf of ICE and were then able to go after the agency itself for this practice of purposefully violating their TOS, the opposition is the government. I wouldn't put it past the current administration to nationalize U-Haul as punishment in such a situation.
I agree about the punitive damages. There should be life long consequences for everyone involved with ICE.