Without speaking to any specific details of this incident, from what I understand about the law, if the Apple store or the mall diverged from an accepted standard (e.g., using big windows instead of walls, failing to install bollards, etc.), then those decisions can be considered in the context of whether they increased the likelihood that someone would be injured in such an event.

It seems like they probably won't be held responsible, but we also don't know the details. It could come out that this was a specific concern at some point and someone chose not to address it, that they deliberately chose to design their storefront in this way despite the increased risk, etc.

In similarly cited cases (e.g., suing McDonald's for serving hot coffee, suing the phone company after a driver crashed into a phone booth, etc.) once you look closer, it turns out there were ignored warnings, previous accidents, and decisions made for the sake of costs rather than safety. I'm not saying that definitely applies here, but it's not something we can just assume isn't the case.

Reagan used to have a laugh line about a guy who got hit by a car while on a phone booth and sued the phone company.

The context he failed to acknowledge was that the booth was on a blind corner, had been hit multiple times, was damaged and wouldn't open correctly (trapping the victim inside), and the phone company had ignored multiple requests/orders to repair and relocate the booth.

It's entirely possible the Apple store and/or mall did everything required of them to provide a safe shopping experience, but if it happens that they failed in some way to provide adequate protection (e.g., opted for large windows, removed bollards that would have been the standard for a store at that location, ignored warnings, etc.), then there may be some genuine basis for holding them accountable.

And when the AI generates a face from a partially obscured or low-resolution photograph, and presents that as a scientifically accurate representation with 99.9% validity in clinical studies (or whatever), how easy is it going to be for the average public defender to explain to a jury that what they're seeing is basically a computer drawing, even though it looks like a photograph, and that 99.9% actually refers to a statistical probability about some obscure metric, and not that it's 99.9% likely that this is the right person?

>If you publicly post something that ties you to an illegal activity, that's on you.

I think this is part of the issue. It's not necessarily posting photos of yourself committing crimes, but rather a potentially flawed program using a database of unrelated photos to link you to a crime that you may have had nothing to do with.

I don't think the issue is necessarily that they're not allowed to provide access (though, we shouldn't just assume they are), but that if they are allowed, whether that is something we want as citizens, and whether they have an obligation to allow us to opt out, at the very least.

At the same time, that perceived accuracy can mean a false positive is less likely to be questioned, compared to an eye witness whose testimony can be interrogated.

A defense attorney asking a jury to consider whether a witness's recollection seems trustworthy can appeal to a juror's experience with their own memory being unreliable. A defense attorney trying to explain a statistical probability resulting from AI coding has an uphill battle, given how many of us basically assume computers are magic.

It's possible there's a kind of hindsight bias here.

The original intention of the podcast may have been less about arguing for his innocence than about examining a complicated murder investigation without a clear correct answer. The podcast going viral and the takeaway many had about him being innocent may have retroactively became what the podcast was primarily about.

I'm not sure about the specifics here, but my guess is that if they opt not to attend, then there's no basis to say they were denied access, which sounds like the basis of the objection.

Meanwhile, the Air Force was busy attempting to build a bomb that would turn enemy soldiers gay.

In the early 90's, an attorney in South Africa investigating death squads was assassinated with a bomb hidden in a pair of headphones that he received in the mail.

It was referenced in a play I was watching, and something about it just stuck with me.

It's probably a good policy, with the caveat that a lot of people have learned to feign incompetence in an attempt to exploit that kind of reasonable position.

If it helps, there are benefits to freezing during extreme circumstances, including enabling you to focus and possibly protecting against the development of PTSD related symptoms.

We often think of freezing as an inadequate response, but part of that is because we tend to consider it in situations like this (where it almost certainly wouldn't have been a helpful response), as opposed to situations wherein remaining calm enabled someone to navigate a potentially dangerous situation, and where it may not have been obvious that a "freeze" response was part of what enabled someone to remain calm.

Might just be where large numbers of people were gathered in a confined space.

I have no insight, but part of me wonders whether our expectations are set by stories that romanticize the tragic downfall of figures who attempt to find meaning/satisfaction in ways that are doomed to fail, because that's the genre in which these stories are always told.

In the same way movies about police tend not to focus on the benefits package that comes with a government job, the day to day aspects of being in charge of a cartel may have practical benefits (aside from the obvious "more money than many small nations" aspect).

It's in response to an increase in anti-LGBTQ+ violence, not about a specific response for LGBTQ+ venues.

Presumably they're offering them the kind of training they usually offer to schools, churches, etc.

"Not specifically targeted" doesn't mean immune.

You can also address men as "ma'am."

In fact you can address pretty much anything as pretty much anything.

I don't usually buy into the military hype, but I'm confident they'll find a way to survive this.

At the risk of missing potential sarcasm, that's a pretty good demonstration of why the "you don't know what's in their heart" conversation about racism misses the point.

Except, none of that was violent.

I get the argument that police will chase someone who runs, but we can't allow ourselves to lose sight of the thing that justifies the use of force.

Disobeying police is not what justifies the use of force.

It could be considered an attractive nuisance, or at the very least, more dangerous than a traditional storefront.

Bollards.

All freaking out about it accomplishes is making bollards seem like more of a reasonable accommodation.

You realize that by using hyperbole, you're kind of strengthening their claim about bollards bring a reasonable accommodation?

I have no idea how it works, but I remember hearing some quip about McDonald's being a real estate company that also sells hamburgers.

Could it be possible that Apple gains some benefit from owning property where their stores are located?

Again, I have no idea.

The details would be useful.

For instance, Reagan used to tell a story about someone being hit by a car in a phone booth, and then, shockingly, suing the phone company.

What he left out was that the phone booth trapped the man inside, as the door mechanism was damaged after being hit by cars multiple times in the past, which the company was aware had happened, as they had been told multiple times to move the phonebooth from the blind corner at which it was located.

I don't know the details here, but it's worth keeping an open mind until you see the accusations and evidence.