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

In article <MuednR-41q6MkuHVnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-07-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Um no.

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.

I think you've forgotten that some areas have passed laws making it a
crime to have your property too easy to steal. Same logic you are using.

Nope. Nothing to do with it, actually.


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

That's your arguement of pass the buck responsibility... just because it
was there, it was easy, etc... (correction public road above)

If you don't take the steps that a reasonable person would take...


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...

I chose not to indulge you. Just make a human binding horse sized. is
that so hard?

What are you going to make them out of? How is the horse to get water
and food?

Moreover, what was common practice of the day? What is reasonable for
one person at one time has little bearing on what is reasonable now.


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.

Yet government is *NOT* accountable when someone steals one of their
easy-to-steal vehicles. Only the thief is.

References...


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.

It's about both criminal and civil liability because it's grown beyond
civil liability. And what happens when a person refuses to pay the
government? CRIMINAL penalties. So long as the government is involved the
difference between criminal and civil is semantic at best.

Nope. You're erecting another strawman.


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?

I've seen knives out in parks, festivals, all sorts of public places.
Even in resturants in airports.

Sure you have...


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.

Reasonable is very flexible and changes over time. kids damaging and
stealling car antennas has been going on for decades. It is just as
reasonable to assume that 10 year old will go after the antenna as it
that he will steal the whole car.

Yes. Reasonable is flexible, but at this time, courts have determined
that it is *unreasonable* to leave your car with the keys in it.


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.

Depends on where you grew up. I learned at young age that anything not
secured would probably be stolen because there were people who were
thieves like that about. However I've known people who grew up in rural
areas and chicago was quite an adjustment for them.

As usual, you fail to get it. It isn't because of the chance of theft
that makes it reasonable, it is the chance for harm to come to pass
versus the ease with which one can prevent that harm.

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Car stolen? Youre on the hook for the damage the thief does.
    ... Your logic criminalizes all sorts of NORMAL, REASONABLE, EVERYDAY ... thief there's no helping you. ... Perhaps the car has a mechanical issue. ... they have multiude of reasons for it. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Car stolen? Youre on the hook for the damage the thief does.
    ... Your logic criminalizes all sorts of NORMAL, REASONABLE, EVERYDAY ... That's your arguement of pass the buck responsibility... ... Perhaps the car has a mechanical issue. ... they have multiude of reasons for it. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Student Attacked at School With Stun Gun
    ... He stole my car and ran it off the road ... I think now if I had a gun on meat the time, ... Not all states recognize the same "other" reasons, ... Although Castle Doctrine is not about burglary. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Car stolen? Youre on the hook for the damage the thief does.
    ... Your logic criminalizes all sorts of NORMAL, REASONABLE, EVERYDAY ... thief there's no helping you. ... Perhaps the car has a mechanical issue. ... they have multiude of reasons for it. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: administrators account
    ... new car, you always make sure you have at least ... two sets of keys, for obvious reasons. ... admin accounts, for equally obvious reasons. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)