320
So I guess we can boycott Penske now. (europe.pub)
submitted 1 year ago by [B] to c/Mirror@50501.chat
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 46 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    They did.

    Penske 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Woof. Not the best response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

    The damage. Is the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 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"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent