https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-sues-alleged-driverless-car-attackers/
The Alphabet-owned driverless car service is getting aggressive against alleged vandals after a series of violent incidents in San Francisco.
Fortunately, the 2 people they are suing have been identified.
One of them actively drove their car into them, and tried to pin it on the waymo, and the other goes around slashing tires (and is claimed to have mental issues, which does make it more sucky if true).
The intersection of "Luddite hooligan" and "stops to think about technological capabilities and future consequences before vandalizing stuff" is not large.
Ronaile Burton…allegedly slashed the tires of at least 19 Waymo vehicles. … Burton’s public defender, Adam Birka-White, says in a statement that Burton “is someone in need of help and not jail” …
A technology that'll disproportionately benefit the disabled, drunk and disadvantaged while enabling an integrated transport network by making final mile economically feasible is attacked by selfish idiots and of course lemmy supports them because it's a new technology and apparently people here hate anything new.
Most people on this website already have relative security in life and only pretend to care about the people who are worse off.
how would this not be considered double jeopardy if they're already being charged for the crime?
Criminal prosecution and civil liability are different. If the criminal conviction also includes restitution (pay for the damages) then there likely wouldn't be a need for a civil suit, but it's possible that the suit is to go after additional damages. For example, the criminal conviction might include $1000 in restitution to cover the property damage, but the civil suit might ask for money to cover lost revenue for the time the car was out of service.
