Law, Negligence, Cars and Crooks...(split)

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:34pm

Dahak wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: The crime is commited against the victim. To fine or jail them for being robbed is fucked up.
In respect to the car, what is fined is the possibility of a crime taking place when you leave a car unlocked.
By doing so, you make it possible (invite him really to just do it...) for a thief to commit a crime, thus you're abetting that criminal, and that is punishable.
The police is responsible to avert crimes whenever possible.
I don't see your problem...

Oh please. A reasonable person could not possibly conclude that their car IS going to get get stolen and used as a getaway car in an armed bank robbery. The chances of that happening are so low you have only a slightly worse chance of being hit by lightning. The law is unreasonable.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 12:40pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Dahak wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: The crime is commited against the victim. To fine or jail them for being robbed is fucked up.
In respect to the car, what is fined is the possibility of a crime taking place when you leave a car unlocked.
By doing so, you make it possible (invite him really to just do it...) for a thief to commit a crime, thus you're abetting that criminal, and that is punishable.
The police is responsible to avert crimes whenever possible.
I don't see your problem...
Oh please. A reasonable person could not possibly conclude that their car IS going to get get stolen and used as a getaway car in an armed bank robbery. The chances of that happening are so low you have only a slightly worse chance of being hit by lightning. The law is unreasonable.

Why you dredge such complex situation up?

Thief sees open car, sees chance, opens door, steals something or the car as a whole.
Would it have been that easy if the car was locked and he had to pry it open in public space with chances of being seen? No.
Thus, the not-locked car made this very offence possible or at least increased the possibility of it happening...
The owner is asking for this to happen, and thus a fine is perfectly acceptable. Just as an insurance company is not expected to pay in that case...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 12:44pm

According to my driving teacher (That was years ago) the reasoning behind this why it is illegal to leave your car unlocked is that people who are not allowed to drive (for example drunks, like mentioned by DW, kids or anybody not in possiession of a licence) can get access easier.
I´ve never heard of this law being enforced as long as nothing happened.

However it is enforced if something happens.
I remember a case when some 10 (or so) year old stole a truck that wasn´t locked. This resulted in a big accident with lots of financial damage. The kid´s parents AND the truck company got punished.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:45pm

Then I suppose a woman who is date raped should be fined bscause she incrased the likelyhood of being raped by asking the guy to come watch a movie with her?

FUck that shit., Blaming the victim of a crime is never acceptable. The victim diod not cause the crime he did not force that thief to steal his car, that action was taken by a person who was out for the specific purpose of stealing cars and he took that action of his own accord.

And doesnt punishing the victim of a crime for being victimized seem a bit morally repugnant to you? Or do you just not give a rats ass about people's suffering?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:46pm

salm wrote:According to my driving teacher (That was years ago) the reasoning behind this why it is illegal to leave your car unlocked is that people who are not allowed to drive (for example drunks, like mentioned by DW, kids or anybody not in possiession of a licence) can get access easier.
I´ve never heard of this law being enforced as long as nothing happened.

However it is enforced if something happens.
I remember a case when some 10 (or so) year old stole a truck that wasn´t locked. This resulted in a big accident with lots of financial damage. The kid´s parents AND the truck company got punished.

What the fuck? How the hell would the truck company be liable? ANd how the hell did the kid even start the fucking vehicle

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 12:52pm

Glocksman wrote:You are aware that rapists often use a variation of this as a defense, aren't you?

No they don't. You are comparing apples and oranges. The idea of fining someone for negligence and letting someone off for a crime by blaming the victim are completely different, and you are only attempting to equate them for base dishonest rhetorical purposes of guilt by association.

Oh, and for the other pathetic knee-jerkers in this thread, "it's fucked up" is not a valid rebuttal either.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 12:54pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Then I suppose a woman who is date raped should be fined bscause she incrased the likelyhood of being raped by asking the guy to come watch a movie with her?

I don't know about rape. This is a completely different area.

FUck that shit., Blaming the victim of a crime is never acceptable. The victim diod not cause the crime he did not force that thief to steal his car, that action was taken by a person who was out for the specific purpose of stealing cars and he took that action of his own accord.

But it is abetting the crime. If you leave open your shop over night unobserved, and someone steals something, are you not making it possible for the crime to happen, and thus share some of the responsibility for it?

And doesnt punishing the victim of a crime for being victimized seem a bit morally repugnant to you? Or do you just not give a rats ass about people's suffering?

If the victim has some shared responsibility in the crime, he has to take that responsibility.
"Suffering" doesn't come into that.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 12:56pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
What the fuck? How the hell would the truck company be liable? ANd how the hell did the kid even start the fucking vehicle

IIRC the driver left the key in his truck.
And the company IIRC owned the truck.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-04-26 12:56pm

Dahak wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Dahak wrote: In respect to the car, what is fined is the possibility of a crime taking place when you leave a car unlocked.
By doing so, you make it possible (invite him really to just do it...) for a thief to commit a crime, thus you're abetting that criminal, and that is punishable.
The police is responsible to avert crimes whenever possible.
I don't see your problem...
Oh please. A reasonable person could not possibly conclude that their car IS going to get get stolen and used as a getaway car in an armed bank robbery. The chances of that happening are so low you have only a slightly worse chance of being hit by lightning. The law is unreasonable.
Why you dredge such complex situation up?

Thief sees open car, sees chance, opens door, steals something or the car as a whole.
Would it have been that easy if the car was locked and he had to pry it open in public space with chances of being seen? No.
Thus, the not-locked car made this very offence possible or at least increased the possibility of it happening...
The owner is asking for this to happen, and thus a fine is perfectly acceptable. Just as an insurance company is not expected to pay in that case...

The car owner is already suffering for his stupidity; his car was stolen.

Is punishment at the hands of the state on top of his status as the victim of theft really necessary?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 12:57pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: What the fuck? How the hell would the truck company be liable?

Bob didn´t lock away his Beretta and his 10 year old son ,Tim, shot his friend Tom in the face. How the fuck would Bob be liable?

ANd how the hell did the kid even start the fucking vehicle

Can´t remember. I´d guess the keys were in the truck.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 12:57pm

Rogue 9 wrote:The car owner is already suffering for his stupidity; his car was stolen.

Explain how this refutes the statement "he was negligent".

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:59pm

I don't know about rape. This is a completely different area.

No, it isnt. They are "making the crime possible" so fine the bitch because she shares responsibilkity for the crime!

But it is abetting the crime. If you leave open your shop over night unobserved, and someone steals something, are you not making it possible for the crime to happen, and thus share some of the responsibility for it?

No. Because the crime was commited against the victim. The victim was harmed in the action which took place agaisnt their will. The burden of guilt lies soley on he/she who willingly commiotred an evil act(crime) The victim cannot control the actions of another. And frankly there is no way for the criminal to know the shop is unlocked unless he is already intending to rob the place.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:01pm

Bob didn´t lock away his Beretta and his 10 year old son ,Tim, shot his friend Tom in the face. How the fuck would Bob be liable?

False analogy. The truck company was not even present as an entity, unless it was just because it was a truck manufactured by them. They were not responsible for driving that car. By what legal basis was the company held responsible for a vehicle they no longer have any legal rights to?
Jesus germany is fucked up

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 01:02pm

Rogue 9 wrote: The car owner is already suffering for his stupidity; his car was stolen. Is punishment at the hands of the state on top of his status as the victim of theft really necessary?

Meh, probably not. That´s, i guess, why this is only enforced when something happens.
On the other hand the police has to search for the thief which means that it wastes police recources which means that it wastes precious tax payers euros

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 01:05pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
I don't know about rape. This is a completely different area.
No, it isnt. They are "making the crime possible" so fine the bitch because she shares responsibilkity for the crime!

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just a fucking idiot? Assigning negligence for a negligent act which happens to result in a crime does not mean that criminal responsibility for that crime has been transferred to the negligent party, dumb-shit. The criminal still goes to jail, and the negligent party gets charged with negligence, not the criminal act which resulted from it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:05pm

salm wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: The car owner is already suffering for his stupidity; his car was stolen. Is punishment at the hands of the state on top of his status as the victim of theft really necessary?
Meh, probably not. That´s, i guess, why this is only enforced when something happens.
On the other hand the police has to search for the thief which means that it wastes police recources which means that it wastes precious tax payers euros

The problem though, is intent. One of those pesky elements of a crime. A criminal was out with the intent of comitting auto theft. He would ahve stolen that car, or A car regardless.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 01:05pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: False analogy. The truck company was not even present as an entity, unless it was just because it was a truck manufactured by them. They were not responsible for driving that car. By what legal basis was the company held responsible for a vehicle they no longer have any legal rights to?
Jesus germany is fucked up

Aah, misunderstanding. Not "truck company" as in producer of the truck but a truck company that was using the truck to transport goods from A to B. They owned the truck and it was parked on their property.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 01:07pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: The problem though, is intent. One of those pesky elements of a crime. A criminal was out with the intent of comitting auto theft. He would ahve stolen that car, or A car regardless.

So it´s not a crime that bob left his gun lying around because he didn´t intend to get his son´s friend shot?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 01:09pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
salm wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: The car owner is already suffering for his stupidity; his car was stolen. Is punishment at the hands of the state on top of his status as the victim of theft really necessary?
Meh, probably not. That´s, i guess, why this is only enforced when something happens.
On the other hand the police has to search for the thief which means that it wastes police recources which means that it wastes precious tax payers euros
The problem though, is intent. One of those pesky elements of a crime. A criminal was out with the intent of comitting auto theft. He would ahve stolen that car, or A car regardless.

Also, this is a black & white fallacy. Just because locking your car doesn´t make it absolutely safe doesn´t mean that it makes car theft less often if the majority of people lock their car. It´s harder, takes longer and is louder to steal an unlocked car.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
I don't know about rape. This is a completely different area.
No, it isnt. They are "making the crime possible" so fine the bitch because she shares responsibilkity for the crime!
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just a fucking idiot? Assigning negligence for a negligent act which happens to result in a crime does not mean that criminal responsibility for that crime has been transferred to the negligent party, dumb-shit. The criminal still goes to jail, and the negligent party gets charged with negligence, not the criminal act which resulted from it.

No, I think it is you who have a reading comprehension problem. By your logic(and Dahak's) a victim of date-rape should be charged with negligence. That is a bit of a problem now isnt it?

The standard of negligence is whether or not a reasonable person could conclude that a crime would certainly or most likely result as a result of those actions.

A person who leaves their door unlocked does not meet this standard either on a commercial vehicle or a home. Because the chance of auto theft per individual is so low. Are they stupid? SUre. Are they criminally negligent? FUck no.

Leaving a gun in an unlocked case is a different story because the danger per capita for an accident happening is IIRC considerable.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-26 01:13pm

Pardon, fucked up the above sentance. It should mean:

Locking your car makes it harder to steal it, so if the majority of cars are locked car theft rates will be lower.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 01:13pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:No, I think it is you who have a reading comprehension problem. By your logic(and Dahak's) a victim of date-rape should be charged with negligence. That is a bit of a problem now isnt it?

Bullshit; you have to show that she was negligent. How is a date-rape victim negligent? This "guilt by association" bullshit of yours is tiresome and completely unjustified.

The standard of negligence is whether or not a reasonable person could conclude that a crime would certainly or most likely result as a result of those actions.

Wrong. That is your definition of negligence. It bears no resemblance to any reasonable definition. Failing to take a reasonable action which, through omission, increases the risk of harm is negligence.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:14pm

salm wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: The problem though, is intent. One of those pesky elements of a crime. A criminal was out with the intent of comitting auto theft. He would ahve stolen that car, or A car regardless.
So it´s not a crime that bob left his gun lying around because he didn´t intend to get his son´s friend shot?

Remember what I said about mreasonable expectations a few posts ago? Leaving a car unlocked onedoes not have the reasonable expectation that a ten year old will hop in and go for a joy ride.

One CAN have the reasonable expectation that by leaving a gun cabinet open, a kid could get into it and harm themselves.

The former is a stretch because it happens rarely per capita. The later hapens copmmonly and kids have a tendency to rummage around the house.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-04-26 01:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
I don't know about rape. This is a completely different area.
No, it isnt. They are "making the crime possible" so fine the bitch because she shares responsibilkity for the crime!
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just a fucking idiot? Assigning negligence for a negligent act which happens to result in a crime does not mean that criminal responsibility for that crime has been transferred to the negligent party, dumb-shit. The criminal still goes to jail, and the negligent party gets charged with negligence, not the criminal act which resulted from it.

Actually, the reading comprehension problem would lie with failing to recognize that Germans who leave their cars unlocked are not charged with negligence, but rather with aiding and abetting the robbery, even if the robbery does not actually occur. Negligence =/= aiding and abetting a felony.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 01:14pm

Stop making up your own fucking definition of negligence in order to avoid admitting defeat.