Re: Car stolen? You're on the hook for the damage the thief does.

In article <jMSdnXDi3NOYZubVnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-07-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's very much the same. It's a crime of opportunity that is done
because there is an attractive and accessible target.

No. Because you're conflating two things.

No I am not.

Yeah... ...you are.


Is the driver any less a victim of a crime because he left the keys in
the car? No. That's what is equivalent to your rape example.

They are both crimes of opportunity because of an attractive target. I
already explained that to you.

And you're wrong.


But the car is a dangerous device that is easily rendered safe by a
simple step. For that part, there is simply no analog.

So is knife, a horse, a bucket of water, a computer, a motorcycle, a
bicycle, a boat (powered or not), a heavy box, a rock, etc into infinity.
Your logic criminalizes all sorts of NORMAL, REASONABLE, EVERYDAY
behaviors. Which is exactly what government wants.

Nope. I said nothing about criminal liability. This is about *civil*
liability.


They made the car cable of going that fast.

But given the society in which we live, that capability has been deemed
reasonable.

It's not legal to drive 100mph on any road. Yet you can do that. So since
you want to be shifting blame to those people who assume others will
behave responsibly in, around, and with a piece of hardware.....

LOL



Right. And that fact changes the duty of care, because there are no
reasonable steps that could be taken to prevent the harm.

No reasonable steps? Sure, there are all sorts of 'reasonable' steps if
you are willing to be annoyed enough to take them.

Outline them...

If you can't figure out how to lock a horse to something to slow down a
thief there's no helping you. Remember, even with taking the keys out all
it does is slow down a thief.

And yet, you failed to explain it...


With a car, there is a reasonable step: take the keys out.

It's annoying under some circumstances.

Describe an example.

Perhaps the car has a mechanical issue. Cop leave their vehicles idling
all the time, they have multiude of reasons for it. Of course sometimes
police cruisers get stolen because of it. But the cops, they are above
the law as the muscle for our rulers. To adopt your logic that a person
is responsible for the damage a car thief does you must also put the
employees of government in different class and that creates a whole
different set of problems. The simplest and fairest thing to do is to
hold the thief responsible for the thief's actions.

The thief is responsible for his part, the driver for his: leaving a
dangerous device available when it is easily made much less available.

Taking reasonable steps.


Not particularly dangerous? Since when? They are easily capable of
being used to kill a person.

So is a big enough stick.

Exactly the flaw in your 'logic'. You end up criminalizing all sorts of
normal reasonable behavior under the concept of what a criminal might do
with it.

Again, this was never about criminal liability.


Not to the extreme circumstances of where one is held responsible for
the actions of another, especially a thief because his property was
stolen.

So if it hadn't been a thief, but a little child who thought it would be
fun to drive, would that change the situation in your mind?

If a little child thought that the knife was a fun toy and chopped off a
few of his fingers or the fingers of a sibling with it, would that
change yours?

There are circumstances where knives should be kept out of a child's
hands and I would hold people responsible for the harm caused, yes.

But cars are out in *public*, where children are *expected* to be.

So are knives.

Really? You walk down the sidewalk and find knives lying around, do you?


Imagine the parking lot of a 7-11 and 10 year old child. It isn't
reasonable to park your car there and leave the keys in the ignition
precisely because it *is* reasonable for a 10 year old child to be found
at a 7-11 outside of the supervision of his or her parents.

LOL. You are really stretching things for desperation and using the 'but
for the children' routine that is used to justify all sorts of power
grabs by the government.

What if you lock your car and that same 10 year old unscrews the radio
attenna and uses it as weapon breaking windows and whiping people upside
the face with it? Why didn't you take the easy steps of unscrewing it and
securing it in the trunk when you parked? It's no less difficult than
removing a key.

Because society and jurisprudence have standards about what is
*reasonable*. You should go and research the subject.


Bottom line: you have a dangerous device (a car) and you refuse to take
an easy step to safeguard it (take your keys out when you're stopped and
out of the car), you are partly responsible for the harm it causes.

Just about everything is a potentionally dangerous device in the wrong
hands. Going about life securing everything because of what a criminal
might do with it is insane.

Then there is the degree of 'reasonable' steps... locked, alarmed,
lo-jacked, how far ya going to go? What's the minimum? Why is your idea
of the minimum better than someone elses? Or should we just place blame
where the blame belongs, WITH THE CRIMINAL?

What a reasonable person would do is the standard. A reasonable person
wouldn't leave a car with the keys in the ignition.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
.

Relevant Pages