Someone steals your car

[1a2b3c]

Poll question: Someone steals your car

Out of your garage, where you would think your car was safe from crime. They kill a family of 4 in a high speed chase with the cops. Come to find out it was your daughters friend who stole your car out of your garage. Whos fault is this?

[CO Liberal]

1. If You Left Your Keys In The Ignition........

....you helped facilitate the crime.

[1a2b3c]

2. What if you left them on the kitchen table?

and the person broke in and found them?

[CO Liberal]

4. That's Two Crimes

Breaking and Entering, and Grand Theft Auto.

(BTW, thanks for posting my pic in your Gallery.)

[1a2b3c]

5. So if only one crime happened its the car owners fault?

Lets say they didnt break in. The daughter had a key and let the person in.

And thanks for posting your picture.

[CO Liberal]

7. It's Still Not The Owner's Fault

But I can see where you're going here. Keep your guns locked up.

[1a2b3c]

8. So you are saying

My dad was not, and i quote, negligent and irresponsible for leaving his gun in an unlocked safe in his basement with his house locked up?

[Evil_Dewers]

10. Why wasn't the safe locked? n/t

[1a2b3c]

11. He was cleaning it

[CO Liberal]

12. Let's See......

Considering several scenarios:

House Locked, Safe Unlocked - Someone had to commit a crime to get the gun, so your dad's not responsible for the gun's subsequent use or misuse.

House Locked, Safe Locked - Someone had to commit a crime and break two locks to get the gun. Again, your dad's not responsible.

House Unlocked, But Safe Locked - Someone had to commit a crime to get the gun. Again, your dad's not responsible.

House and Safe Both Unlocked - It was easier for someone to get the gun, but still a crime was committed. Again, your dad's not responsible.

You Dad Gives or Sells the Gun to a Known Felon - Your dad bears a certain amount of responsibility.

[1a2b3c]

15. Damn CO

This whole time i thought this reply was from Romulus. I agree 100% with everything.

[jody]

20. Federal crime "Dad Gives or Sells the Gun to a Known Felon", up to 10 yrs.

[RoeBear]

18. Do I get to say...

...is that you on the left or right? :evilgrin:

(you had to be waiting for that one, didn't you?) O8)

[happyslug]

23. Leaving the keys in the igniton is NOT illegal in most states

AND if you own a GM product, who needs a key. The Switch in GM products are the easiest to bypass, most people can learn how to do so in about 2 minutes AND do it within 10 seconds. Other car makers are a little bit harder but not much. My father's car was stolen several years ago and I only found it when the local public housing agency called me up to move it or their were going to have it towed. When I told them I did not have a key to the Vehicle (my sister had the key ring it was on) they told me just go to the car with a screwdriver and they will show me how to start the car. Which they did, two minutes to learn, ten seconds to start. In my opinion it was even faster than using a key.

One thing I learned about that incident, I no longer drive automatic transmissions. Most car thieves do NOT know how to drive a Standard so Standards are almost never stolen even if you leave the key in the transmission. Having a Standard is better than locking the doors and taking the keys with you.

[Axman]

26. Ah yes...

Remember the "Don't let a good boy go bad!" Campaign during the 70's and 80's? First on the list was to make sure you took your keys out of your car and locked it... to keep a good boy from going bad.

I hate to say it but it's as much a crock of shit today as it was then. I've never bought into it and anyone who did was a sucker.

[Romulus]

3. I voted "irresponsible"

because you should have foreseen the potential danger of someone stealing your car out of your own garage and possibly killing someone with that car, intentionally or not. The key here is "foreseeability." You should have had a "wheel boot" or something else on the car to prevent the potential misuse. :crazy: :silly:

But I'm just a kebab vendor, what do I know. :shrug:

[Bozola]

6. You should have used birth control....

...If you had, you wouldn't have had a daughter who would have had a friend who would have stolen your car. Latex saves lives!

...If GM hadn't destroyed the trolley system in the US back in the early 1950s you wouldn't own a car for your daughter's friend to steal. Instead there would have been a high-speed bicycle chase ending in a family of four ending up with scraped knees. Light rail saves lives!

...If you raised your daughter in a small, dark, isolated box, or perhaps, a remote satanic nunnery high in the Carpathian Alps, your daughter wouldn't befriend someone who was going to steal your car. Satan saves lives!

...If you required your children to befriend only licensed race car drivers so that in event of the friend deciding to steal your car they would have the skill and experience not to kill a family of four in the process of being chased by the police. Well trained criminals save lives!


...If you traveled back in time and killed the grandfather of the man who was killed with his family before his grandfather met his grandmother so that the man wouldn't exist to produce the family who would have died in the high-speed chase, thus rendering the event regrettable but not unconsolable. Time travel saves lives!

[XanaDUer]

13. Your post is hilarious!

:)

And here I was all depressed.

[jody]

9. Car manufacturer should be sued for designing a defective product. eom

[pansypoo53219]

14. would never happen

my last car was a 73' olds delta 88' 4 door. which would be awsome for a joy ride.
except for the original radio and IT WAS PEA GREEN and mustard gold interior. its ugltness was its own theft device. BUT I LOVED HER.

[iverglas]

16. who cares?

The issue is how best to prevent harm, and whether individuals should be required by law to engage in harm-prevention activities. And whether, if they intentionally or negligently fail to prevent an opportunity for causing harm from arising that they could have prevented with a minimum of effort, they are at fault for what they did.

People who steal cars go on to do dangerous and harmful things with those cars at a very high rate. That's why, where I'm at, it IS illegal to leave your keys in your ignition when your car is unattended. The law is intended to have a deterrent effect: to DISSUADE people from leaving their keys in their ignition, by threatening them with punishment if they do it ... whether or not the car is stolen.

People who steal firearms go on to do dangerous and harmful things with those firearms at a very high rate. That's why, where I'm at, it IS illegal not to lock your firearms up when they're not in use. The law is intended to have a deterrent effect: to DISSUADE people from not locking their firearms up when they're not in use, by threatening them with punishment if they do it ... whether or not the firearms are stolen.

Unfortunately, it's a damned sight harder to detect most violations of the lock-up-your-firearms law than it is to detect many violations of the remove-your-keys law. In both cases, though, a violation is most likely to come to light only when someone takes advantage of the law-breaking and steals the thing in question.

What IS the owner's "fault", in both cases, is that an opportunity to cause harm was created where none would have existed if the owner had obeyed the law, or behaved responsibly even if there is no law. We all know that there are people out there just looking for opportunities to steal firearms and cars, with which they can reasonably be expected to cause harm. Everyone who owns a firearm or a car KNOWS THIS, and cannot reasonably be heard to say that s/he is entitled to act as if s/he didn't know it. That's just crap. And everyone who KNOWS that this is a possibility and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from happening does indeed share the blame.

It's illegal to break into my home. Nonetheless, I may not plant land mines under my windows, and then when someone gets his/her legs blown off, say "but it was his/her fault, s/he was committing a crime!" If you keep a tiger in your back yard, it may get out even if you tell it to stay put and tie it to a post; if you do not install big fences and strong locks, it WILL be your "fault" if someone lets the tiger out and it kills the neighbour's kid.

I mean ... if it were YOUR neighbour who had the tiger, and YOUR kid who got killed after the neighbourhood JD untied its rope ... wouldn't YOU be blaming the neighbour just a weensy bit for failing to take the necessary precautions to prevent this from happening?

In the case of 1a2b3c's firearm, if someone gets killed by the meth dealer using the firearm he is now presumed to be in possession of, it won't likely be anybody that 1a2b3c knows, so that's alright then, I guess. Not his fault, not his father's fault. Just a loose tiger that nobody had any responsibility to keep off the street at all.

.

[1a2b3c]

17. I skimmed through this reply

Looks like youre looking for a flame from me. It reminds me of the entire flame thread on the issue. Im not biting today.

[1a2b3c]

19. I do have a question though

I mean ... if it were YOUR neighbour who had the tiger, and YOUR kid who got killed after the neighbourhood JD untied its rope ... wouldn't YOU be blaming the neighbour just a weensy bit for failing to take the necessary precautions to prevent this from happening?


Someone breaks into this guys back yard and breaks open a cage holding a tiger. The guy has all legal permits and has the tiger secured in his yard. Youre saying its his fault because he owns the tiger that someone illegally let out of the locked cage in his back yard?

Sorry i thought i wouldnt bite.

[iverglas]

21. do excuse me

"Someone breaks into this guys back yard and breaks open a cage holding a tiger. The guy has all legal permits and has the tiger secured in his yard. Youre saying its his fault because he owns the tiger that someone illegally let out of the locked cage in his back yard?"


... but are we not all under the impression that your firearm was NOT in a locked cage (just as the actual tiger in my actual question was NOT in a locked cage) ... and is this not the entire point of the discussion?? Whatever you were trying to bite seems to have been just some delusion of your own, and nothing at all to do with my post.

People do own things that other people would like to get hold of and engage in (at least potentially) harmful activities with. Firearms and motor vehicles are two of those things -- things that WE KNOW, and their owners know, are targets for theft by people who are likely to do harmful things with them.

People may have entirely legitimate reasons for wanting to own things that other people would like to use to cause harm -- like firearms and motor vehicles. There are entirely legitimate reasons for owning both firearms and motor vehicles. There is no sufficient justification for prohibiting most people from owning firearms and motor vehicles.

That does not mean that people who own firearms and motor vehicles cannot be required to handle them in ways that reduce the risk that someone else will take them and use them to cause harm. They most certainly can. The fact that the risk is a real and serious one, and is very easily reduced by a significant amount, is quite adequate justification for imposing such requirements on them. Anyone who owns a firearm or motor vehicle can entirely legitimately be required to handle it in a particular way, one that reduces the risk of it being used unlawfully by others to cause harm and at the same time imposes only the most minimal of burdens on the owner (remove the keys from the ignition; store under lock and key separate from ammunition).

Owners of firearms and motor vehicles KNOW that their property is susceptible to being stolen and being used to cause harm. They KNOW the risk. They know that the risk can be significantly reduced by taking a very few, very easy steps. Their failure to take those very few, very easy steps is a link in the causal chain that leads to the harm, in the cases where the other links -- theft, shooting, driving at high speeds -- occur.

If your firearm had not been left unguarded in an unlocked location, it would not now be in the hands of a drug dealer; if that drug dealer uses the firearm to kill or injure someone, or to enable him to commit crimes, the death or injury or crime would not have occurred without the firearm. (Never mind "he would just have got another one" ... or I'll have to repeat my initial question: why not just give the criminals guns?) You ARE responsible for your role in that chain of events.

.

[1a2b3c]

24. I considered a locked house a locked cage

The trying to bite came from the ending of your post. Most of it was fine, the ending was flamebait.

and yes, firearm owners have a duty to keep their firearms out of criminal hands. I would think leaving your vault open for a day in a locked house should be alright. Some seem to think it is, and i quote...again, negligent and irresponsible to leave your vault open, for whatever reason for a short period.

[Spentastic]

25. Some? Like me I suppose

Your first instinct was that the gun had been stolen by your brother in law? Was the house broken into, did BOL steal the key from your sister? Even if it is the latter this indicates that this is not a random unpredictable act. I would have thought knowing that a family member with access to the property had a drug problem (or associated with people with drug problems) it would have been imperative that the owner or person in charge to ensure that weapons were secured at all times.

If you demand the right to bear arms I think it fair that those that don't share similar views demand that you are responsible ALL the time. By the way, Overnight is a short period?

[1a2b3c]

33. This could be my fault

My parents didnt really know about the drug problem that my sister had. They knew she smoked pot but thats about it.

I agree, that gun owners should be responsible. Where i am having trouble agreeing with you is that you dont seem to think a locked house is as good of a safe keeping for your firearms as a locked house is.

To me they are both the same, one is just harder to get into. More effort, in my opinion, should be spent putting away home invasion robbers than bitching about safes for firearms and putting away drug users.

[iverglas]

34. duh

"Where i am having trouble agreeing with you is that you dont seem to think a locked house is as good of a safe keeping for your firearms as a locked house is."


Uh ... how about because IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T?

How much more bleeding obvious could this be, from the very tale before our eyes ...

.

[1a2b3c]

36. So what about those people who cant afford

a walk in safe in their basement? Is their locked house not good enough to hold a firearm? It would be if more home invasion robbers got shot.

[BullDozer]

37. Yeah sure

Uh ... how about because IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T?

Is that so?

The doors and windows to my apartment are a far better material barrier to a thief then any safe I could get into my upper story flat would be, and as we all should know any apartment dwelling person who is concerned at all about security lives above ground level.

Would you like to be the person living under me with 500lb-1400lb (or more) (empty weight) safe right over them?

The entries to my specific apartment provide more security than anything less than a safe of that quality and weight would.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Your society

You want a society where the innocent are guilty and guilty bear no burden for breaking the law. That's ass backwards.

If someone breaks into my home -- and lives (which means I wasn't there) -- then steals something and kills others with it, there is no way that is my fault.

[iverglas]

28. what who wants

I seem to be hearing a Who. Wazzat it says?

"You want a society where the innocent are guilty and guilty bear no burden for breaking the law. That's ass backwards."

I dunno. There must be a Whom around here somewhere to which this Who is talking. Wonder where ...

Perhaps Whos are prone to hearing voices that aren't really there at all. That still wouldn't explain why this statement appeared on the board in response to *my* post.

Who knows? Who cares?

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. As clear as your other post

Which means not at all.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spentastic]

31. Because

"You want a society where the innocent are guilty and guilty bear no burden for breaking the law."

I know that's what you want. You post lots of things that give the impression that that isn't what you want, but you know in your heart of hearts that.

"a society where the innocent are guilty and guilty bear no burden for breaking the law."

Would make everything better.

I posted before but I used the trigger deletion word.

[fromthehip]

32. Tigers act on their own.

A tiger is not equal to a gun. A tiger has the ability to act on its own. A gun must be acted upon. Remember, it is not the Caliber of the gun, it is the caliber of the man behind it.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[novakara]

22. that's why we need "smart cars"

how about mandating that all new cars are "smart cars", you know they can't start unless a biometric device recognizes the rightful user? Or how about SMART CAR II, with mandatory breathalizers that won't start for anyone who's been drinking? What about banning "assault cars", you know, those specifically designed to go faster than the speed limit? Nobody needs a sportscar to go to the grocery store...

[Lefty48197]

38. Doesn't matter

if they steal your car then you are allowed to shoot them.

[BullDozer]

39. Is that so?

Doesn't matter if they steal your car then you are allowed to shoot them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's a Ypsilanti MI zip code you use in your DU name, and as far as I know you cannot legally use deadly force in defense of property in Michigan.

Has the law changed since I left?

If so the East side of Ypsi should have the streets flowing red with the blood of car thieves on a daily basis.

Are you actually advocating the shooting of someone if they are stealing your car? :eyes:

[1a2b3c]

40. Not in most states

Unless they try to steal your car at gunpoint... you cant shoot them. Unless you live in Texas.

[Pert_UK]

41. If this is really a question about guns.........

Then I think you need to consider the analogy a bit better.

For example - a locked car in a garage is akin (IMHO) to a gun locked in a gunsafe. If you've left the car keys on the kitchen table, then it's still keys left in a locked house. That seems to be a reasonable amount of security for a car - car locked, garage locked, keys separate from them. Several levels of security.

A car isn't designed as and doesn't make a hugely practical weapon. It might be stolen for transport or fun, but not often for violence. Misuse of a car may indeed lead to deaths, but that's an incidental.

Now a gun is designed to kill. If it's stolen, it will be stolen with violence in mind (or the strong possibility that it will be sold to someone who will use it in violence). Leaving the keys to a gunsafe somewhere obvious is akin to not locking the gun in the safe at all. Guns merit a higher level of protection from theft than cars, as the motives/intent of the gun thief seem to be more dangerous than those of the car thief, and there is greater potential for death (IMHO).

There is virtually no security in leaving a gun in a safe if you leave the keys obvious. The onus is on you to make it very difficult for someone else to access the gun - in the same way, you almost certainly would pay more attention to preventing your 8 year old finding the keys to your gunsafe than you would to them finding your car keys.....