Again: you don't have to get the tip of the barrel anywhere close to your lips. You just have to have the tip of the barrel pointed at an angle which intercepts that of your open mouth. Move hands to side, angle object with fingers.
Cuffs generally leave several inches of space, and your fingers and elbows and shoulders aren't restrained at all. It's very much possible.
I'm afraid I don't have a quick and reasonable way to take a photo of myself while doing so, as both my hands would, of course, be occupied, and my only available camera is a very basic smartphone. If I find the time to figure out a rig, or (less likely) find someone else who would be willing to take photos of such shenanigans without embarrassing myself too greatly, I'll gladly do so.
The important question then, is: why would the cops lie about her being found shot with her arms still behind her back?
It would look so much less suspicious for them if they said they found her uncuffed, or with her arms in front of her, and could say she escaped the handcuffs and then shot herself.
Rather than saying that she shot herself while her hands were tied behind her back, which almost every media outlet to report on it has pounced on as unlikely or suspicious.
If they were so stupid as to just shoot her and then cuff her, and claim that she shot herself while her hands were cuffed behind their back, I have a hard time believing that there wouldn't have been various other gaping holes in their story uncovered in the 9 months since the event.
You can do it yourself. Got a 16-oz soda/water bottle handy? Probably a comparable length to the revolver. A flashlight would be even better for several reasons.
Hold it behind your back with both hands at the base. Bend your elbows to raise the object while maneuvering your arms to one side. Lift remote/bottle/gun/revolver underneath one armpit. Lower head towards armpit and open mouth wide.
If you're using a flashlight with a button on the base, go ahead and press it.
Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the back of the mouth with a beam of light.
What, did you think bullets won't kill you unless your lips are on the barrel? That gap of 6-12 inches doesn't matter one bit to a piece of metal going over a thousand feet per second. All it cares about is being aimed the right direction.
Or alternatively: why would equipment supplied by the lowest bidder be expected to compare to the equipment consumers would actually find fit to purchase?
Can't have the cops wasting all that valuable taxpayer money on more expensive cameras just because those fancy cameras do something frivolous like "actually work"!
Not necessarily. The driver was resisting arrest almost immediately, requiring the attention of both officers on scene. They found another gun -- a rifle, and boxes of ammunition for it -- in the car after they had subdued him.
1) There were only two officers on scene. It is unclear whether it is meant to suggest they were together or in two separate cruisers, but there were only two officers on the scene. This is why it is not so shocking that only one body camera was on-scene, when there are over 500 officers and only 350 cameras. It also explains why Ms. Wilson was reportedly left on her own when the driver attempted to flee and engaged in a struggle with one of the officers.
2) After the botched arrest, another weapon was found in the car along with the variety of drugs that were discovered both on the driver and in the vehicle. Possession of this rifle was illegal in and of itself, as the driver was a convicted felon. This provides some credence to the idea that the revolver which fatally wounded Ms. Wilson came from within the car, and was not in the possession of the police.
3) According to a close friend of the driver, all three were homeless, and living in the vehicle -- which was loaned to them, not owned by any of them. The driver, according to his own account, was on the way to a probation hearing regarding previous drug possession charges.
4) According to Sarah's mother, she had tattoos of both her siblings' names -- including one that had been born mere months before Sarah's death.
These are hardly "smoking guns," but it at least seems plausible, does it not?
A 19-year-old girl, in a relationship with a man 8 years her elder, who is a convicted felon. A girl with two siblings, one of whom was more than 18 years younger than her, and a mother who went straight to the news, yet never once went to a lawyer.
I know people who have been depressed to the point of attempting suicide. They never mentioned it on social media, either. Their families considered any attempts made to state their feelings as "just a phase" or "being moody". And they would often profess their strong love for their siblings or pets. None of that prevented them from putting a belt around their neck or slicing open their arm.
And then there's the fact that she was, allegedly, homeless and living in this convicted felon's car, surrounded by drugs and weapons, despite her mother living nearby and still raising children. This suggests to me that either there was a serious divide between her and her mother, resulting in being kicked out or running away, or she was not capable of understanding how bad her situation was (either by blind teenage love, or by drugs, or by depression and the feeling of worthlessness that comes with it).
So you're 19. You've either been rejected by your family, or you've rejected them. You're living out of a car -- not even your car, a car shared by two other people. Your boyfriend is 8 years older than you, is a convicted robber, and is a drug user. And now you've been arrested, while he's trying to punch an officer while swallowing a bag of drugs.
I don't think it's such a stretch to say: this is a really, really bad situation for you.
No matter what happens, it's probably pretty clear your boyfriend is going to get taken away from you and get locked up for a good long while. Quite possibly your "home" will be taken away, too. And you might even go to jail on top of that. You don't have much, but you're watching what little you have go right down the drain.
If you're suffering from any depression, or various other mental disorders that might trigger a spur-of-the-moment action, death now may seem a much more merciful option than having to suffer on through all these new tortures unfolding ahead of you.
Of course, that still begs the question of, how do you shoot a revolver through your mouth when you're handcuffed?
Well... all those handcuffs are doing is keeping you from moving your hands around to your front. You can still grab things with them. You can still move them up higher on your back and to the side, as far as your arms are able to stretch. You can still twist your head, neck, and back around. You're not being restrained in any other way. It's not all that impossible.
Now, this would be a lot clearer if the police department would stop making things look bad for itself by refusing to offer the body cam footage. By keeping it under wraps, they are doing nothing to support the case that it was suicide, and doing a lot to make it seem like they have something to hide. But even if they are innocent in her death, they do have a "good" reason not to release it. (That's "good" as in "good for the police department ", not "good" as in "good for literally anyone else".)
The traffic stop was quite likely not legal to begin with. At best it was pretextual. The couple had been under active police surveillance by the narcotics officer involved in the arrest for an undisclosed amount of time before the traffic stop, meaning there could quite likely be difficulties for the PD if the exact reason for the stop is disclosed, such as, perhaps, by a body camera recording.
In short: without a lawsuit to uncover the footage, we're not likely to have this footage revealed, and none of the affected parties seem to have shown any interest in filing such a lawsuit, only in making a media circus.
There is no footage (according to the police department) because it was "knocked offline". As in, "it was turned off" and not recording audio or video.
Wait, wait... I must have been misunderstanding something here. I thought the gang analogy here was that the police were the gang, not that the police were the victims of the gang.
I mean, if the punishment for lying to the state is either execution or being gang-raped, can you imagine how horrific the punishment must be for actually shooting someone?
I was not aware that "shutting off a police camera" and "being accused of shutting off a police camera" were the same thing.
Kinda was under the impression that "filing charges" and "being jailed" were two different things, too. Whoops.
If that's how Western Law works, maybe we do need to toss it out. I've heard a lot about this Sangria Law from the Middle-Earth, maybe we should give that a try, even though we're not an Islandic nation.
That part isn't what AirBNB was suing over. That's regarding taxes based on the sale, which the Supreme Court has decided last year is fully legal.
AirBNB was only suing over (c), the part that says they can't get paid for their part in a sale unless they check to make sure the property is legally allowed to be sold.
The platform is profiting off of these transactions, and is only liable to check whether the transaction is a legal transaction when they are being paid to perform the transaction.
This is... exactly what every other rental agent in the nation does, is it not? Charges a fee to help renters and owners find each other, and if the transaction is illegal, they've just directly profited from an illegal sale.
Just like any other law: check all jurisdictions applicable to the transaction. Does the federal government require registration? No? How about the state? No? Does the county? No? How about the town? Yep, check town registry.
They're already required to do fancy math like this when it comes to taxes.
Then it's not very different from a delivery company like FedEx having to discover local driving regulations, or face liability for an accident caused by one of their drivers failing to meet these regulations.
Whoa. I'm sorry, that formatted completely awfully. Let me try that again without markdown.
6.20.050 Hosting platform responsibilities.
(a) Hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs and remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of TOT collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 6.68 of this Code.
Means you pay the local tax to AirBNB, and AirBNB pays the tax to the city, instead of paying the city directly.
(b) Subject to applicable laws, hosting platforms shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each home-sharing and vacation rental listing located in the City, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay.
Same thing is already required of standard rentals.
(c) Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction.
This is the part AirBB does not like. They're not forced to remove anything, only to not allow any transactions (which they profit from) to be completed if the property is not properly listed with the city.
(d) Hosting platforms shall not collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for facilitating or providing services ancillary to a vacation rental or unregistered home-share, including, but not limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, retaurant bookings, tours, guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of the residential property or unit.
In other words, AirBNB can't charge you for sending you a list of local entertainment or hooking you up with a tour or calling in a maid for you. They can still do that if they want, but it has to be a free service.
(e) Safe Harbor. A hosting platform operating exclusively on the Internet, which operates in compliance with subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above, shall be presumed to be in compliance with this Chapter, except that the hosting platform remains responsible for compliance with the administrative subpoena provisions of this Chapter.
Finally, none of the other restrictions that apply to hosts apply to host platforms, except for further things relating to section b and providing information about rentals when demanded.
(a) Hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs and remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of TOT collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 6.68 of this Code.
Means you pay the local tax to AirBNB, and AirBNB pays the tax to the city, instead of paying the city directly.
(b) Subject to applicable laws, hosting platforms shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each home-sharing and vacation rental listing located in the City, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay.
Same thing is already required of standard rentals.
(c) Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction.
This is the part AirBB does not like. They're not forced to remove anything, only to not allow any transactions (which they profit from) to be completed if the property is not properly listed with the city.
(d) Hosting platforms shall not collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for facilitating or providing services ancillary to a vacation rental or unregistered home-share, including, but not limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, retaurant bookings, tours, guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of the residential property or unit.
In other words, AirBNB can't charge you for sending you a list of local entertainment or hooking you up with a tour or calling in a maid for you. They can still do that if they want, but it has to be a free service.
(e) Safe Harbor. A hosting platform operating exclusively on the Internet, which operates in compliance with subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above, shall be presumed to be in compliance with this Chapter, except that the hosting platform remains responsible for compliance with the administrative subpoena provisions of this Chapter.
Finally, none of the other restrictions that apply to hosts apply to host platforms, except for further things relating to section b and providing information about rentals when demanded.
"A hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
It's not an advertisement, it's a transaction going through AirBNB, like making a payment by check. If your bank allows you to send or receive money from illegal sources, such as sanctioned individuals, your bank is in trouble.
All that a host has to do is "not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
Very easily discernable by AirBNB. In fact, although I would highly suggest it should be, it doesn't even necessarily require human interaction and could be fully automated.
The Amazon case disagrees with you. Third-party sellers, not officially tied to Amazon, were the source of the illegal pesticides. The big difference between AirBNB is that Amazon was involved with shipping the product, and not just the transfer of money in exchange for the product... but they did not post the item for sale, or give it any special treatment not given to any other third party using Amazon to sell a product.
One thing that does work in favor of AirBNB is this part of the Tiffany ruling: eBay "sufficiently protects buyers by canceling auctions reported to the VeRO program as believed to be infringing."
One thing that does not work in favor of AirBNB: the actual ordinance doesn't require them to remove anything. It doesn't prevent them from listing anything. It only requires them to match a transaction to a registry.
"Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
Re: Re: RE
Again: you don't have to get the tip of the barrel anywhere close to your lips. You just have to have the tip of the barrel pointed at an angle which intercepts that of your open mouth. Move hands to side, angle object with fingers.
Cuffs generally leave several inches of space, and your fingers and elbows and shoulders aren't restrained at all. It's very much possible.
I'm afraid I don't have a quick and reasonable way to take a photo of myself while doing so, as both my hands would, of course, be occupied, and my only available camera is a very basic smartphone. If I find the time to figure out a rig, or (less likely) find someone else who would be willing to take photos of such shenanigans without embarrassing myself too greatly, I'll gladly do so.
Re: Re: Not so unbelievable.
The important question then, is: why would the cops lie about her being found shot with her arms still behind her back?
It would look so much less suspicious for them if they said they found her uncuffed, or with her arms in front of her, and could say she escaped the handcuffs and then shot herself.
Rather than saying that she shot herself while her hands were tied behind her back, which almost every media outlet to report on it has pounced on as unlikely or suspicious.
If they were so stupid as to just shoot her and then cuff her, and claim that she shot herself while her hands were cuffed behind their back, I have a hard time believing that there wouldn't have been various other gaping holes in their story uncovered in the 9 months since the event.
RE
You can do it yourself. Got a 16-oz soda/water bottle handy? Probably a comparable length to the revolver. A flashlight would be even better for several reasons.
Hold it behind your back with both hands at the base. Bend your elbows to raise the object while maneuvering your arms to one side. Lift remote/bottle/gun/revolver underneath one armpit. Lower head towards armpit and open mouth wide.
If you're using a flashlight with a button on the base, go ahead and press it.
Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the back of the mouth with a beam of light.
What, did you think bullets won't kill you unless your lips are on the barrel? That gap of 6-12 inches doesn't matter one bit to a piece of metal going over a thousand feet per second. All it cares about is being aimed the right direction.
Re: Re:
Or alternatively: why would equipment supplied by the lowest bidder be expected to compare to the equipment consumers would actually find fit to purchase?
Can't have the cops wasting all that valuable taxpayer money on more expensive cameras just because those fancy cameras do something frivolous like "actually work"!
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't know the truth are just smearing cops
Not necessarily. The driver was resisting arrest almost immediately, requiring the attention of both officers on scene. They found another gun -- a rifle, and boxes of ammunition for it -- in the car after they had subdued him.
And I would think it's less difficult to sneak a gun into a car if you're homeless and living out of the car.
Bigger post below, but it's not so far-fetched as it seems on first glance.
Not so unbelievable.
1) There were only two officers on scene. It is unclear whether it is meant to suggest they were together or in two separate cruisers, but there were only two officers on the scene. This is why it is not so shocking that only one body camera was on-scene, when there are over 500 officers and only 350 cameras. It also explains why Ms. Wilson was reportedly left on her own when the driver attempted to flee and engaged in a struggle with one of the officers.
2) After the botched arrest, another weapon was found in the car along with the variety of drugs that were discovered both on the driver and in the vehicle. Possession of this rifle was illegal in and of itself, as the driver was a convicted felon. This provides some credence to the idea that the revolver which fatally wounded Ms. Wilson came from within the car, and was not in the possession of the police.
3) According to a close friend of the driver, all three were homeless, and living in the vehicle -- which was loaned to them, not owned by any of them. The driver, according to his own account, was on the way to a probation hearing regarding previous drug possession charges.
4) According to Sarah's mother, she had tattoos of both her siblings' names -- including one that had been born mere months before Sarah's death.
These are hardly "smoking guns," but it at least seems plausible, does it not?
A 19-year-old girl, in a relationship with a man 8 years her elder, who is a convicted felon. A girl with two siblings, one of whom was more than 18 years younger than her, and a mother who went straight to the news, yet never once went to a lawyer.
A mother whose arguments that her daughter could not have possibly been suicidal were, “She’s a moody teenager. If there is a mom out there that hasn’t heard some of that stuff from their kids, I’d love to meet them,”, that her Facebook page didn't mention anything about depression, and that "she would never do that to her sisters".
I know people who have been depressed to the point of attempting suicide. They never mentioned it on social media, either. Their families considered any attempts made to state their feelings as "just a phase" or "being moody". And they would often profess their strong love for their siblings or pets. None of that prevented them from putting a belt around their neck or slicing open their arm.
And then there's the fact that she was, allegedly, homeless and living in this convicted felon's car, surrounded by drugs and weapons, despite her mother living nearby and still raising children. This suggests to me that either there was a serious divide between her and her mother, resulting in being kicked out or running away, or she was not capable of understanding how bad her situation was (either by blind teenage love, or by drugs, or by depression and the feeling of worthlessness that comes with it).
So you're 19. You've either been rejected by your family, or you've rejected them. You're living out of a car -- not even your car, a car shared by two other people. Your boyfriend is 8 years older than you, is a convicted robber, and is a drug user. And now you've been arrested, while he's trying to punch an officer while swallowing a bag of drugs.
I don't think it's such a stretch to say: this is a really, really bad situation for you.
No matter what happens, it's probably pretty clear your boyfriend is going to get taken away from you and get locked up for a good long while. Quite possibly your "home" will be taken away, too. And you might even go to jail on top of that. You don't have much, but you're watching what little you have go right down the drain.
If you're suffering from any depression, or various other mental disorders that might trigger a spur-of-the-moment action, death now may seem a much more merciful option than having to suffer on through all these new tortures unfolding ahead of you.
Of course, that still begs the question of, how do you shoot a revolver through your mouth when you're handcuffed?
Well... all those handcuffs are doing is keeping you from moving your hands around to your front. You can still grab things with them. You can still move them up higher on your back and to the side, as far as your arms are able to stretch. You can still twist your head, neck, and back around. You're not being restrained in any other way. It's not all that impossible.
Now, this would be a lot clearer if the police department would stop making things look bad for itself by refusing to offer the body cam footage. By keeping it under wraps, they are doing nothing to support the case that it was suicide, and doing a lot to make it seem like they have something to hide. But even if they are innocent in her death, they do have a "good" reason not to release it. (That's "good" as in "good for the police department ", not "good" as in "good for literally anyone else".)
The traffic stop was quite likely not legal to begin with. At best it was pretextual. The couple had been under active police surveillance by the narcotics officer involved in the arrest for an undisclosed amount of time before the traffic stop, meaning there could quite likely be difficulties for the PD if the exact reason for the stop is disclosed, such as, perhaps, by a body camera recording.
In short: without a lawsuit to uncover the footage, we're not likely to have this footage revealed, and none of the affected parties seem to have shown any interest in filing such a lawsuit, only in making a media circus.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deaths in police custody need to be investigated
Good lord, I can hardly imagine what the penalty for that would be if merely lying requires execution!
Being force-fed the remains of their mother, perhaps, before being roasted on a bed of hot nails?
Re: Chesapeake Va shooting
There is no footage (according to the police department) because it was "knocked offline". As in, "it was turned off" and not recording audio or video.
Re: Re: Deaths in police custody need to be investigated by some
Wait, wait... I must have been misunderstanding something here. I thought the gang analogy here was that the police were the gang, not that the police were the victims of the gang.
I mean, if the punishment for lying to the state is either execution or being gang-raped, can you imagine how horrific the punishment must be for actually shooting someone?
No wonder they all decided to lie instead.
Re: Re: Cams
I was not aware that "shutting off a police camera" and "being accused of shutting off a police camera" were the same thing.
Kinda was under the impression that "filing charges" and "being jailed" were two different things, too. Whoops.
If that's how Western Law works, maybe we do need to toss it out. I've heard a lot about this Sangria Law from the Middle-Earth, maybe we should give that a try, even though we're not an Islandic nation.
Re: Google should start charging for DMCA notices.
If only that were legal... Unfortunately, I don't believe it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That part isn't what AirBNB was suing over. That's regarding taxes based on the sale, which the Supreme Court has decided last year is fully legal.
AirBNB was only suing over (c), the part that says they can't get paid for their part in a sale unless they check to make sure the property is legally allowed to be sold.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The platform is profiting off of these transactions, and is only liable to check whether the transaction is a legal transaction when they are being paid to perform the transaction.
This is... exactly what every other rental agent in the nation does, is it not? Charges a fee to help renters and owners find each other, and if the transaction is illegal, they've just directly profited from an illegal sale.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I disagree.
Just like any other law: check all jurisdictions applicable to the transaction. Does the federal government require registration? No? How about the state? No? Does the county? No? How about the town? Yep, check town registry.
They're already required to do fancy math like this when it comes to taxes.
(untitled comment)
Then it's not very different from a delivery company like FedEx having to discover local driving regulations, or face liability for an accident caused by one of their drivers failing to meet these regulations.
Re: Re:
6.20.050 Hosting platform responsibilities.
(a) Hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs and remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of TOT collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 6.68 of this Code.
Means you pay the local tax to AirBNB, and AirBNB pays the tax to the city, instead of paying the city directly.
(b) Subject to applicable laws, hosting platforms shall disclose to the City on a regular basis each home-sharing and vacation rental listing located in the City, the names of the persons responsible for each such listing, the address of each such listing, the length of stay for each such listing and the price paid for each stay.
Same thing is already required of standard rentals.
(c) Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction.
This is the part AirBB does not like. They're not forced to remove anything, only to not allow any transactions (which they profit from) to be completed if the property is not properly listed with the city.
(d) Hosting platforms shall not collect or receive a fee, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for facilitating or providing services ancillary to a vacation rental or unregistered home-share, including, but not limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, retaurant bookings, tours, guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of the residential property or unit.
In other words, AirBNB can't charge you for sending you a list of local entertainment or hooking you up with a tour or calling in a maid for you. They can still do that if they want, but it has to be a free service.
(e) Safe Harbor. A hosting platform operating exclusively on the Internet, which operates in compliance with subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above, shall be presumed to be in compliance with this Chapter, except that the hosting platform remains responsible for compliance with the administrative subpoena provisions of this Chapter.
Finally, none of the other restrictions that apply to hosts apply to host platforms, except for further things relating to section b and providing information about rentals when demanded.
Re:
It already is.
In full:
Means you pay the local tax to AirBNB, and AirBNB pays the tax to the city, instead of paying the city directly.
Same thing is already required of standard rentals.
This is the part AirBB does not like. They're not forced to remove anything, only to not allow any transactions (which they profit from) to be completed if the property is not properly listed with the city.
In other words, AirBNB can't charge you for sending you a list of local entertainment or hooking you up with a tour or calling in a maid for you. They can still do that if they want, but it has to be a free service.
Finally, none of the other restrictions that apply to hosts apply to host platforms, except for further things relating to section b and providing information about rentals when demanded.
Re: Re: I disagree.
"A hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
It's not an advertisement, it's a transaction going through AirBNB, like making a payment by check. If your bank allows you to send or receive money from illegal sources, such as sanctioned individuals, your bank is in trouble.
Re: Re: Re: Margarine melts at 110𝆩, and butter at 98.6𝆩,
Complete legality is not something they have to determine in this ordinance.
All that a host has to do is "not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
Very easily discernable by AirBNB. In fact, although I would highly suggest it should be, it doesn't even necessarily require human interaction and could be fully automated.
Re: Re: I disagree.
The Amazon case disagrees with you. Third-party sellers, not officially tied to Amazon, were the source of the illegal pesticides. The big difference between AirBNB is that Amazon was involved with shipping the product, and not just the transfer of money in exchange for the product... but they did not post the item for sale, or give it any special treatment not given to any other third party using Amazon to sell a product.
Another relevant case that does not involve any physical transfer: in the early 2000's, PayPal was fined $10 million for allowing people to use PayPal to transfer money for illegal gambling.
One thing that does work in favor of AirBNB is this part of the Tiffany ruling: eBay "sufficiently protects buyers by canceling auctions reported to the VeRO program as believed to be infringing."
One thing that does not work in favor of AirBNB: the actual ordinance doesn't require them to remove anything. It doesn't prevent them from listing anything. It only requires them to match a transaction to a registry.
"Hosting platforms shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section 6.20.020 subsection (b), at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for the booking transaction."
More comments from Qwertygiy >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Qwertygiy.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt