Theif Steals Your Car and Causes Harm - Now You Can Be Held Responsible

[Krull]

Yea good point ... I'm done here.

[MikePapa1]

So, Gentlemen, I fully understand your view. You are heaping full responsibility on a thief, a person who has already shown he is irresponsible. I admire your principled stance. I just hope that in the event a tragedy like this befalls you or yours that you'll adhere to those principles and be responsible for your own losses and damages. You see, the thief, will either be in jail or no where to be found, or simply will have no means to compensate you for your losses so you'll get to bear them. I hope you stick by your guns, pun intended, and declare that the owner of the stolencar, no matter how stupid or irresponsible should be wholly exonerated from their own decisions by the act of the thief. In 27 years of practicing law I've met only a handful of people who really meant it's the principle of the thing and not the money.

[E4 No More]

Again, you're putting too much importance on this Coded Key. If the person wanted to steal a car, they would either find a way around the issue of not having a key ( car thieves have been doing it for years ), or find another car to steal. It's the thieving behavior that's the problem or issue here, not how easy or difficult someone has made it to steal a car.

This whole argument is a load of bull and exactly what is wrong with people/society today. Turning a victim into an accessory to a crime - even in civil court - is simply another "somebody's gonna PAY me and I don't care who"- type of situation. It's also the very sort of thing that gives lawyers and the law in general a black eye. I don't see a bit of difference in this, and the claims that guns are evil and are solely responsible for actions that PEOPLE commit.

You are right; there is another way to steal a car with a coded key: a tow truck. Then the victim of the crime hasn't facilitated the theft at all.

[E4 No More]

:mad:Ill say it for ya. This is the most rediculous bunch of GD Fing BS I have seen in some time. I don't give a rats ass how much anyone can pontificate and bluster on about "civil liability" and personall responsibility, it just flies in the face of common sense and reason. It should not matter if her 4 year old kid was playing race car driver and left the keys in the ignition and the windows down. When someone steals any item from another the victim is just that a victim and they are in no way shape form or fasion responsible or liable for the actions of the thief. You can take all your legal mumbo jumbo and sitck up your poo hole. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS CHOICES AND ACTIONS OF ANOTHER ADULT. IF THEY HAD NOT STOLEN WHAT WAS NOT RIGHTFULLY THEIRS THERE WOULD BE NO ONE TO BLAME FOR ANYTHING PERIOD. WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok Keyboard Commando, by this moronic reasoning then it shouldn't matter leaving a loaded gun on the front porch for a kid to find. You should be able to leave your gun anywhere, right? You didn't tell that kid to play with the gun and shoot himself or another, did you? You aren't responsible at all, right?

Try it and see how successful you are at defending the lawsuit, genius.

BTW: This is called an analogy.

 [/url]/əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

Edited December 14, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[Fallguy]

Let's be careful on direct personal comments......

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

I say if we are gonna start spreading liability then why not focus on the parents of the social degenerate that stole the car in the first place lol

[Fallguy]

I say if we are gonna start spreading liability then why not focus on the parents of the social degenerate that stole the car in the first place lol

I'm sure if there was a way to prove some direct contribution to his actions, they would...

[Guest Jamie]

Ok Keyboard Commando, by this moronic reasoning then it shouldn't matter leaving a loaded gun on the front porch for a kid to find. You should be able to leave your gun anywhere, right? You didn't tell that kid to play with the gun and shoot himself or another, did you? You aren't responsible at all, right?

Try it and see how successful you are at defending the lawsuit, genius.

Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but the last time I was in court on a criminal case, the law made a really big distinction between a child and an adult. One was supposed to know certain things, be capable of understanding the ramifications of certain actions and be responsible for it's own actions. And the other wasn't and was required to be supervised and prevented from doing certain things.

You do know which one is which, don't you? It's kind'a hard to tell from some of the stuff you've been posting...

[Guest Jamie]

You are right; there is another way to steal a car with a coded key: a tow truck. Then the victim of the crime hasn't facilitated the theft at all.

Not being a professional car thief, I can't say for sure what another way would be. However, knowing what I do about computers and electronics, I'm fairly confident that there's probably a way to get around not having the coded key. I'd probably start by looking around the dealership for a master key, or some other device for re-setting the codes, or getting the car's on-board computer to ignore the code altogether... But that's just me I guess.

[Guest nsane]

If we're playing the pass the blame game, why isn't the car manufacturer responsible? After all, had they not made the car in the first place, it would have never been stolen. Where are they in this case? How could they manufacture a car to be so dangerous, that's NEGLIGENCE!! Oh, and let's also blame the car owner's parents, because, let's face it, had they not given birth, there would be no way that the keys would have been left in the car in the first place. Or what about their parents, same thing.

We could keep going down the line until possibly everyone is to blame, even the person who got hit is to blame, I mean, if they weren't where they were at the time, they would have never been hit.

If a thief wants to steal a car or anything else, nothing will stop them. Even when it comes to online security, protection is being cracked all the time. So, are we going to blame the developers of methods of encryption when they are broken?

No amount of security or preparation will ever completely get rid of criminals, but artificially creating more (even if only held with civil responsibility) by passing blame around is not going to solve anything either.

The only one who is directly responsible is the one who BROKE THE LAW!

Edited December 14, 2010 by nsane
spelling . . .

[E4 No More]

Pardon me, Mr. Lawyer, but the last time I was in court on a criminal case, the law made a really big distinction between a child and an adult. One was supposed to know certain things, be capable of understanding the ramifications of certain actions and be responsible for it's own actions. And the other wasn't and was required to be supervised and prevented from doing certain things.

You do know which one is which, don't you? It's kind'a hard to tell from some of the stuff you've been posting...

Pardon me, Mr. Deputy, do you know what an analogy is? Change the analogy to adult and the outcome would still be the same. Come on, ask me how I know.

[E4 No More]

Not being a professional car thief, I can't say for sure what another way would be. However, knowing what I do about computers and electronics, I'm fairly confident that there's probably a way to get around not having the coded key. I'd probably start by looking around the dealership for a master key, or some other device for re-setting the codes, or getting the car's on-board computer to ignore the code altogether... But that's just me I guess.

I would think a LEO would keep up with such things. Why go through that trouble when you can just use a tow truck with its obvious cover?

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Because not all thieves have easy access to a tow truck? Or maybe some just like to be different? lol

[MikePapa1]

Because not all thieves have easy access to a tow truck? Or maybe some just like to be different? lol

Hmmmmmm. Why not steal a tow truck first?

[E4 No More]

Because not all thieves have easy access to a tow truck? Or maybe some just like to be different? lol

Is that why the news station in Nashville did a report not too long ago about the number of tow trucks that were stealing cars on the side?

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Hmmmmmm. Why not steal a tow truck first?

I guess you could but they probably wouldnt want to hold onto that stolen property for too long. So unless they wanted to steal a tow truck and car on each outing they may want to use another method?

And Jewell I am not saying that criminals dont use tow trucks but while we are off in this hypo rant I was giving some reasons why someone might want to try and bypass the car's coded key system as Jamie suggested rather than just tow the vehicle as you suggested

[Guest Jamie]

Pardon me, Mr. Deputy, do you know what an analogy is? Change the analogy to adult and the outcome would still be the same. Come on, ask me how I know.

Yes I do... and you obviously don't know what a piss-poor one is.

An adult and a child are not the same. Neither is an object that by it's very nature is SUPPOSED to be dangerous - a gun, versus one that is supposed to be anything but - a car.

So, you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to oranges to bananas to pears...

Add in the nutty thinking and we're just a little flour and sugar short of a fruitcake recipe.

How's that for an analogy?

[Guest Jamie]

I would think a LEO would keep up with such things. Why go through that trouble when you can just use a tow truck with its obvious cover?

They probably would. An ex-leo has no reason to though... he's got enough other stuff to keep up with already.

And stealing a tow truck only results in the tow truck owner being sued for being negligent enough to get his truck stolen... which puts us right back at the beginning of this mess. And also alleviates the need to steal the car.

Btw... how far do you figure we are from a person being afraid to file a police report on his/her car being stolen, for fear that they'll be sued for causing the police to have to pursue said stolen car, and then being held liable for the damage caused when the thieves wreck and hurt someone, trying to get away from the cops? Even when the person didn't do anything negligent like leaving their keys in the car? When do we become obligated to just let the vehicle go, so no one gets hurt while trying to recover it?

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

I guess you could but they probably wouldnt want to hold onto that stolen property for too long. So unless they wanted to steal a tow truck and car on each outing they may want to use another method?

And Jewell I am not saying that criminals dont use tow trucks but while we are off in this hypo rant I was giving some reasons why someone might want to try and bypass the car's coded key system as Jamie suggested rather than just tow the vehicle as you suggested

Y'know, it could be that the device, if one exists, to bypass a car's key code is a helluva lot smaller and easier to steal than a tow truck.... Like, maybe small enough that a locksmith could tote it around with him?

...just sayin'.

[E4 No More]

Yes I do... and you obviously don't know what a piss-poor one is.

An adult and a child are not the same. Neither is an object that by it's very nature is SUPPOSED to be dangerous - a gun, versus one that is supposed to be anything but - a car.

So, you're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to oranges to bananas to pears...

Add in the nutty thinking and we're just a little flour and sugar short of a fruitcake recipe.

How's that for an analogy?

What part of, "Change the analogy to adult and the outcome would still be the same" got past you? Can it be more clear? I notice that you didn't ask me how I know either.

Humm, what kills more people every year then a gun. Anyone? How about...cars?

[E4 No More]

Y'know, it could be that the device, if one exists, to bypass a car's key code is a helluva lot smaller and easier to steal than a tow truck.... Like, maybe small enough that a locksmith could tote it around with him?

...just sayin'.

Let's see, what would be easier to do?

A. Steal a tow truck to steal newer cars

B. Work as a tow truck driver and steal on the side while you are driving around town looking for legitimate tows

C. Find the VIN for a target car and bribe a dealership to provide a key from the manufacturer while not worrying about the fact that those are traceable

D. Invent and manufacture a device that can mimic any coded key regardless of any intellectual challenges for such things that you face

EDIT: Having several vehicles that require a coded key, at the time of purchase of each I was given coded tags to present to the dealership along with proof of who I am and ownership of the car in the event that I lost a key. Then there's a hefty price to pay for the replacement key also.

Edited December 14, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[Guest Jamie]

What part of, "Change the analogy to adult and the outcome would still be the same" got past you? Can it be more clear? I notice that you didn't ask me how I know either.

Humm, what kills more people every year then a gun. Anyone? How about...cars?

By changing the child to an adult you remove the requirement that someone else is supposed to be responsible for them, so they can stand fully accountable for their own actions. That makes the analogy a poor one, since it's not an equal exchange. And yes, these days people all but drawn and quartered for letting ANY unauthorized person have access to their firearms. So again, not really an equal exchange. Had the thief in the article that started this conversation not hurt anyone, there'd be no one trying to hold the car's owner accountable for much of anything. The same probably wouldn't be true if willful negligence with a gun were what we were discussing.

A car isn't intended to be a weapon, neither is it small enough for a child to carry off... though children do on occasion steal cars. Usually from a relative, and usually by stealing the keys first. And you can ask me how I know, if you're so inclined.

Anyway, leaving your car in your driveway with it locked and the keys secured could hardly be compared to leaving a Smith & Wesson out on the front porch with no ammo in it and the trigger lock engaged. That being the case, neither is leaving a loaded gun accessible to a child a valid comparison to the story under discussion.

[Guest Jamie]

Then there's a hefty price to pay for the replacement key also

What DOESN'T have a hefty price attached to it at a car dealership???

( Last time I had anything to do with a dealership, they were gonna charge me $150 to put a new alternator on a car. The alternator cost 50 bucks, and had 2 bolts holding it in place. Took me all of 20 minutes to replace it myself. )

Seriously, I no longer have any interest at all in the court case any more... that's been called for what it is: B.S.

But it's certainly interesting to see how certain minds work regarding this stuff. And seeing what I am here, it's little wonder things are as screwed-up as they are now. Doesn't leave much hope that they're apt to get any better, either.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

Let's see, what would be easier to do?

A. Steal a tow truck to steal newer cars

So... then we see the tow truck manufacturer sued because they didn't use a code key for the truck, when the same dumbass wrecks it instead of a car while trying to escape arrest. Or as I've mentioned, I think, the owner of the tow truck is the subject of the lawsuit. Which is more likely since the owner of a company probably has more money than the owner of the average car...

And this is all working under the assumption that the car wasn't stolen for no other reason than the thief was tired of being a pedestrian. ( I'm absolutely shocked that you haven't used that argument. It would actually be a fairly rational and believable one that would support negligence on the car owner's part playing a large role in the car being stolen. )

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jamie

[MikePapa1]

The test in the law isn't "but for" but rather proximate cause.