Lyft rideshare driver fired dgu
Shutterstock

“Brotherly Love” surely seems to be a distant thing of the past in Philadelphia. Under the permissive policies of Philly DA Karry Krasner, and “bail reform” efforts, the city experienced a record number of shootings and murders last year.

But according to police, a Lyft driver put the brakes on a couple of armed carjackers with the help of his carry piece. While the bad guys wanted to trade up from their Honda Accord to the driver’s Infiniti, their criminal enterprise yielded enough hot lead to put them in critical condition. No innocents or animals were injured during the incident.

The bad guys, however, face arrest should they survive their wounds. For now though, they’re in the hospital getting an opportunity to reconsider their chosen career path.

The Charlotte Observer has the story:

The incident occurred around 2:45 p.m. Monday, Jan. 3, in West Philadelphia, where officers were dispatched for reports of a carjacking, according to a police report.

The 38-year-old Lyft driver was rear-ended by a driver in a Honda Accord, causing him to exit his Infiniti, police say. A person in the Accord who was armed with a shotgun then took the Lyft driver’s car, according to police.

As his car was being taken, the Lyft driver with a concealed carry license used his own gun and shot the would-be carjacker in the chest, police say. A second suspect driving the Infiniti tried striking the Lyft driver, who proceeded to shoot the person in the rib cage, according to police.

Unfortunately for the driver, Lyft maintains a criminal-friendly policy that prohibits its contractors and passengers from carrying self-defense tools. No matter how dangerous their area of operation.

Of course, many like this driver, simply ignore Lyft’s dangerously backward thinking on self-defense and carry (legally) anyway.

From the Lyft website:

Lyft has a strict “No Weapons” policy for all of its properties. This includes Lyft Hubs and service centers.

Our “No Weapons” policy applies when you are doing business as a representative of Lyft, which includes times that you are driving for Lyft, as well as times that you are visiting a Lyft Hub.

This means that even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property.

We approach this from a community perspective. It’s hard to know what someone else is or isn’t comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.

At a minimum, a “weapon” includes any form of firearm. There are many items that could be considered weapons besides firearms, such as handguns, stun guns, explosives, knives, sling shots and tasers. Lyft reserves sole judgment on what else may constitute a “weapon.”  If you have any questions about whether various items could be considered a “weapon” under this policy, please contact Lyft Support before bringing any questionable items onto Lyft property.

That the Philly driver chose to put his own safety ahead of an arbitrary company policy may well have saved his life. It will likely cost him his job though.

Carjackings and other violent crime have skyrocketed in urban areas across America, especially those where Soros-funded district attorneys make charging and prosecutorial decisions. Places like Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco, Austin and Los Angles. Now New York, too. And, of course, Philadelphia. Places where citizens will increasingly ensure they have the means to defend themselves when elected officials clearly won’t.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

38 COMMENTS

  1. “There are many items that could be considered weapons besides firearms, such as handguns, stun guns, EXPLOSIVES, knives, sling shots and tasers.”

    So… some bad dude announces a robbery, are they worried the driver is going to casually toss a grenade in the back seat, step out, and walk away whistling while twirling the pin on his finger?!?

    • that would make a GREAT vignette in a punk the punk film. Then show the car, dirtbags enclosed, going up in an YUUUUGE ball of tannerite.

      • “Then show the car, dirtbags enclosed, going up in an YUUUUGE ball of tannerite.”

        Splattered bad-guy is a real bitch to clean from a Japanese luxury car leather interior… 😉

  2. quote: “even in places where it is legal to carry a weapon, we ask that you do not carry a weapon”

    note the key word “ASK”.

    BEsides, if the Lyft driver has his weapon well concealed, HOW is any passenger/patron going to feel “uncomfortable”? Silly dweebs. As a potentioal Lyft/Uber passenger I would prefer to know that I am NOT tightly enclosed in a small space “guaranteed” to be a “Certified Defenseless Victim Zone”. I’d feel far more comfortable knowing the driver COULD be armed. I know the only two times I’ve been in one of those rent-a-hacks (with a friend) I have been armed. But I never said a word.

    Good job this guy not only still has his car, but he’s also still breating freely. Unlike the pair that attempted to end his career and life.

    • I drove for Uber/Lyft for a while. I was always armed, and I assumed hat a percentage of my riders were.
      I refused to pick up riders at the Denver Federal Center, as I *could* be searched. I DID drive around at Fort Carson, after a soldier assured me.

  4. Its a shame the driver could lose his job but maybe not. Its a stupid policy to begin with, poorly written as asking but applied as a prohibition. Lyft drivers are independent contractors, not regular employees.

    The Lyft “No Weapons” policy applies when you are doing business as a representative of Lyft, which includes times that you are driving for Lyft, as well as times that you are visiting a Lyft Hub.. But the “No Weapons” policy is not an outright strict prohibition because, as they state in their policy, they only … ask that you do not carry a weapon on any Lyft property. and they apply that “ask” as their “No Weapons” weapons policy.

    “asking” something of an independent contractor has a different application than asking something of a regular employee. An independent contractor doesn’t lose their rights to operate ‘autonomously’ in the work environment in deciding to not accede to a request of “ask” – A regular employee does lose their rights to operate ‘autonomously’ in the work environment and can’t refuse a request of “ask” in the work place environment.

    But Lyft is an unfriendly company to begin with. So maybe they will fire him, I hope not, maybe not since he was in danger while operating on their behalf and they only “ask” and not outright prohibit.

    • I can see the advertisement now, something like

      “You can use Lyft or Uber, but if you want to actually be safer while traveling use Carry …dedicated to stopping the bad guys from stopping you while you travel.”

      • We use taxi services regularly whenever visiting the in-laws in “Parador” but not here in the States. Felt nervous only one time, late at night, but it worked out ok. If I lived in a metro area, and an outfit like your suggested “Carry” was available, I’d use them.

  6. GOD BLESS THE LYFT DRIVER , PRAYERS FOR HIM ALSO
    GLAD HE WAS ARMED , AND SURVIED IT ALL . PRAY COURT DOES NOT PROSECUTE HIM
    HOPE HE GETS TO STAY FREE AND ARMED

    • There aren’t many details, but this sounds like it may be a bad shoot. It seems like the bad guys already had his car when he fired. It says a guy with a shotgun took his car, but then says a 2nd guy was driving the Infiniti, so it’s a little confusing. After the shooting, the bad guys drove off with both cars. Unless they were continuing to point a deadly weapon at him, his life was no longer in danger. It says they tried to run him down after he started shooting, which implies they weren’t doing it before he shot. If the bad guys broke off the conflict and were escaping, the Lyfter instigated a new conflict by shooting the 1st bad guy, which could make attempting to hit him with the Infiniti a defensive act by the 2nd bad guy. It’d be equivalent to shooting a robber as he was carrying your TV out the front door. Regardless, it’d let the Lyfter go if I was on his jury via nullification if nothing else.

      • Krasner is the DA, andn he’s owned by Soros, so he might very well prosecute whether it’s a good shoot or not.

        I drove for Uber and Lyft for a while as a second job way back when they first started. In fact I was the first Lyft driver in my area and had to go a metro area to get signed up. Always ignored their policy and carried anyway. In fact I carry at every job regardless of policy.

      • Well I say if someone steals your stuff you should be able to track them down and make sure they dont do it again, even if it takes 13 years.
        But shootzing someone driving away doesn’t save your life.

  8. Lyft was originated in San Francisco, and its company logo was a pink mustache (for those of you who remember) to denote its intended clientele base.

    I guess Lyft doesn’t want any of their “associates” to defend themselves, regardless of their personal traits. They’re an equal opportunity freedom denier. I’ve never hailed a Lyft, and I never will.

  9. “The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.” Lyft policy

    Lyft’s alleged policy (if stated correctly above) is NOT a reasonable and credible fear of great bodily harm nor death. Rather, Lyft’s alleged policy characterizes an irrational and hysterical fear–no different than a fear that a Lyft driver could use his/her vehicle’s seat belt to strangle the passenger so seat belts must therefore be forbidden.

    It is deeply disturbing to me that Lyft would prioritize irrational, hysterical fears above the actual security and well-being of their drivers. Clearly, Lyft declares this policy in an effort to maximize passenger rides and hence profit at the expense of driver security and well-being. Such a practice is unethical at best and illegal at worst.

    Would we as a society/government accept a Lyft policy requiring their drivers to remove seat belts from vehicles–making them completely vulnerable to serious injury or death in traffic crashes–in order to assuage the strangulation fears of passengers? If not, then we should not accept a Lyft policy requiring their drivers to be unarmed–making them completely vulnerable to serious injury or death from violent attacks.

    • or… you could say it this way…

      “The mere absence of a weapon for defense might make another community member distressed and fear for his or her own personal safety.”

    • “Lyft’s alleged policy (if stated correctly above) is NOT a reasonable and credible fear of great bodily harm nor death. Rather, Lyft’s alleged policy characterizes an irrational and hysterical fear”

      they don’t, can’t, distinguish.

  11. “’Brotherly Love’ surely seems to be a distant thing of the past in Philadelphia”

    well look at the demographics. no surprise there.

  12. I’m so relieved to learn that no animals were injured during this carjacking.
    I’m disappointed to read that the carjackers survived.

  13. Anyone that lives in close proximity to Philadelphia chooses to not visit the city under most circumstances. I was born there when Philadelphia was a,safe city.I won’t even go near there now. If I have to go there my brothers Smith&Wesson are with me.

    • ” I was born there when Philadelphia was a,safe city ”

      I was born and raised not more than 30 miles from Philly starting some 70 years ago — pray tell, when was Philly ever a safe city? I never saw that.

  14. Killing someone in self-defense while on the job with a firearm, and being fired for it, is simply the cost of living in the United States. It use to not be that way. But the business owner has a right to set the rules. Just ask the tech companies have a right to stop you, The small business owner, from communicating, with your customers. Just as the banks have a right to terminate their business relationship with you, if your business has to do with the Firearms industry.

    Or when an elected representative of the people has their communication Network turned off by a tech company. And now they are unable to communicate with the voters/citizens. The multibillion-dollar private tech company has every right stop citizens from being able to communicate with their elected representatives.

    As the Libertarians say freedom is Messy.

    btw
    I carry at my work.

  15. As stated previously, passengers shouldn’t be aware that you are carrying. If they try to assault you, the presence of a firearm should come as a big surprise to them.

    But, if anyone is offended, they are free to not do business with you. I mean, who really gives a damn whether someone is offended? Be offended, go on your way, but you won’t be robbing me today!

  16. So if a Lyft driver gets killed because of their no weapons policy, can the family sue Lyft for millions for wrongful death?

    • I’m sure there’s a loophole in the contract signed that covers that, so my answer would be no they couldn’t.

  17. If they live, the two turds on the losing end of the gunfight will no doubt be incensed that the Lyft driver willfully ignored and violated the Lyft “weapon free zone” company policy.

  18. [email protected] – if you are a Lyft rider or driver and need general help with the Lyft app

    [email protected] – if you have an awesome story from a Lyft experience, or just something you want to share, you can submit it to this email

    Twitter: @lyft

    Phone (Customer Service) 1 (855) 865-9553

    Mailing Address: 185 Berry St Ste 5000 San Francisco, CA, 94107-2503

    Just sayin’.

  19. and just a day after the Lyft driver in this TTAG article shoot his car jackers … > Police: Uber driver shot during attempted carjacking in Philadelphia > https://6abc.com/uber-driver-shot-philadelphia-carjacking-fanshawe-street-rideshare-drivers/11426441/

    and Lyft yet again > Lyft Driver Caught in Drive-By Shooting, Says App Didn’t Provide Aid as Promised > https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/lyft-driver-caught-in-drive-by-shooting-says-app-didnt-provide-aid-as-promised/2721023/

  20. “There are many items that could be considered weapons besides firearms, such as handguns”

    Did nobody else catch this?

Comments are closed.