this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
320 points (90.6% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

1240 readers
962 users here now


Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts


founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Happened in LA just days after a federal Judge struck down their use of warrantless arrests. And they continued at a Home Depot in Los Angeles a couple days after.


Originally Posted By u/Snooopineapple At 2025-08-06 04:16:05 PM | Source


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 89 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Did they say to Penske, "renting this for raids?" Not trying to be snide, but it's entirely possible that Penske had no clue what the rental was for.

[–] Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip 46 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Then they should denounce them. Loudly. Otherwise it's compliance and they're part of the problem.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with you one bit. Hopefully they do. Just trying to be realistic.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 79 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They did.

collapsed inline mediaPenske Truck Rental is aware of recent reports and videos regarding a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation in Los Angeles. Penske strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo area of its vehicles under any circumstances. The company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today's operation and did not authorize this. Penske will reach out to DHS and reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future.

Twitter link: https://x.com/PenskeNews/status/1953130587411066951

Edit to add: they didn't say "omg we don't approve of this for politics/ethics" they said "omg that's not safe and you're not allowed to use our trucks that was". I get that the first would be more satisfying to hear, but the second is a legalistic reason to refuse to rent to them again.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As a business, it's a good response. They denounce it without talking a side.

Personally, I would take more action, but I'm not a business.

[–] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

imagine if picking a side in illegally kidnapping people off the street is seen as controversial lol

wtf is happening america

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They did. They said it was illegal in a statement.

Do you have a plan to undo the damage you did by jumping on this bandwagon?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The damage is the point. Their brand was associated with this.

The damage. Is the point.

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The employee rented a truck to a random white guy. They do this every day.

The company stated the act was illegal after learning about it. What more could they do, or have done? If the answer is nothing, then the damage is undeserved.

[–] Allemaniac@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

how about legally press the guy they rented the truck to if it was illegal? Unless I see arrests, penske did absolutely nothing but say "woopsie"

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 1 points 2 weeks ago

We can't hold police accountable for murder, what makes you think that a corporation can hold them accountable for this? On what legal grounds would Penske even build that case? It's not fraud. And Penske can't got after them for laws the police break while using the rental. So they ban that one guy that signed the rental agreement, so what? What exactly will that accomplish? The only effect would be to cost Penske money and make an enemy of a fascist police state that has made no secret of their eagerness to break the law and abandon due process.

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What makes you think they know which of their many customers supplied the rented truck to ICE?

[–] ptolemy@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

Not here to argue for or against, but the license plate is visible in the picture which gives a narrower starting point.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I bet some of them own iPhones. Does that make Apple complicit?