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

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-04-26 01:15pm

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

I'm not making up a new definition. I'm pointing out that negligence is not the charge prescribed by the German law.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 01:16pm

Rogue 9 wrote: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.

Wrong. That was the ethical justification given by Salm. They are only fined, not charged with the felony offense of aiding and abetting a robbery. Stop being a moron.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 01:17pm

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.

But as salm pointed out, by not locking the car you make it easier for the thief, who would have to resort to other, more attention-gathering methods.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-04-26 01:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: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.
Wrong. That was the ethical justification given by Salm. They are only fined, not charged with the felony offense of aiding and abetting a robbery. Stop being a moron.

I'm operating off of what Dahak's been saying, which is that the charge is aiding and abetting the robbery. If he is wrong, I'd be glad to hear it.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 01:37pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: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.
Wrong. That was the ethical justification given by Salm. They are only fined, not charged with the felony offense of aiding and abetting a robbery. Stop being a moron.
I'm operating off of what Dahak's been saying, which is that the charge is aiding and abetting the robbery. If he is wrong, I'd be glad to hear it.

As I said, you will get a fine.
Because you, as the owner of said car, has the responsibility to secure his car, to minimise accidents, traffic disturbances, and against unwarranted and unauthorised use after you leave your car.
And when something is stolen, and car not locked == neglicience.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:39pm

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.

NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

In cases involving allegedly defective, unreasonably dangerous products, the manufacturer may be liable even though it exercised all reasonable care in the design, manufacture and sale of the product in question.

On the other hand, any failure of a manufacturer of a product to adopt the most modern, or even a better safeguard, does not necessarily make the manufacturer legally liable to a person injured by that product. The manufacturer is not a guarantor that nobody will get hurt in using its product, and a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous merely because it is possible to be injured while using it. There is no duty upon the manufacturer to produce a product that is 'accident-proof.' What the manufacturer is required to do is to make a product which is free from defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n010.htm

That is in California.. , emphaiss mine. I must be reaonably concluded that the loss or damage would not have occured. Now, if a crime is commited against a person bewcause they failed to take adequate precautions, charging them with negligence I dont think, under this defintion is prudent. For one, certain crimes(not all but somee, like autho thefts ec) could very easily happen with or withou those precautions being taken. In reality stealing a person's car is not difficult, and even smashing in a window in a parking garage or on the street probably wouldn even be noticed. The issue of intent comes up again.

The argument that the theft would not have occured if the door was locked falls apart when one realizes that such criminal acts happen whether doors are locked or not. People dont give a rats ass about car alarms, and diffusion of responsibility prevents peopel fromr eporting crtmes liek that even if they witness it on a crowded LA street. Take into account many people do not in fact lock their cars orhomes(leaving aside how stupid this is for a moment) a reasonabvle person, because of this is not 'expected' to do it necessarily.

Thoguh I will admit the way this particular bit of law is worded it could be argued either way.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-04-26 01:39pm

salm wrote: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.

Car thieves routinely defeat much more ingenious anti theft measures (like the locking steering column and electronic keying) to steal cars.
Merely locking the doors won't slow down a thief very much at all and claiming its criminal negligence to not lock the doors is a stretch.

Now if the idiot left his keys in the ignition, then a reasonable case can be made for negligence for civil liability if someone gets hurt with the car, but even then, it shouldn't be a criminal offence.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:40pm

Dahak wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
salm wrote: 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.
But as salm pointed out, by not locking the car you make it easier for the thief, who would have to resort to other, more attention-gathering methods.

And if one takes a basic crim class, those attention grabbing methods dont actually decrease the likelyhood of a car being stolen(not necessarily your car, but a car by that same criminal)

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-04-26 01:41pm

From here and sent up to SLAM...

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

Glocksman wrote:Car thieves routinely defeat much more ingenious anti theft measures (like the locking steering column and electronic keying) to steal cars.
Merely locking the doors won't slow down a thief very much at all and claiming its criminal negligence to not lock the doors is a stretch.

In Australia it is a legal requirement for all cars to be fitten with an electronic immobilizer. Which frankly is a far greater effective measure at preventing your car from being stolen than locking the doors.

Still doesnt stop someone from stealing stuff out of the car, but locking the doors doesnt really help much there either.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-04-26 02:07pm

To use another analogy, let's say I dropped my pistol while (legally) carrying it while shopping and some kid found it.

Was I negligent?
Damn straight.
Would I be criminally and/or civilly liable.
Certainly, and rightfully so since I didn't exercise prudent care with a deadly weapon.

Now lets say someone breaks into my apartment while I'm at work and steals the pistol from my desk drawer.

Was I negligent?
Not under US law I'm not, nor should I be, as the gun was in a place where a reasonable person would expect it to be safe from theft or use by a child (I have no children in my household).

Now let's say I have a child and I leave a gun in my desk and the kid finds it and shoots someone.
Am I negligent?
In this case, yes. I have a higher duty of care with a child around to secure my firearms from unauthorized use by said child.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-26 02:18pm

In German law, there are several kinds of negligence.
German civil law has two kinds of negligence. Conscious/deliberate negligence and unconscious/unknowing negligence.
The first is when you can possibly count on something happening, but you think it won't happen right now (if you counted on the bad thing taking place and still didn't do anything to prevent it, it is negligence with intent). The latter is when you don't anticipate something happening, but could have anticipated it by a required and reasonable prudence.
Then you have gross and normal negligence.

Criminal law has slightly different definitions of negligence as above.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-04-27 02:32am

Out of curiosity, does this negligence extend to leaving your car windows open by a couple of cm on a hot day? I remember one of my friends had someone visiting from Germany and they were shocked at the fact that I left my windows cracked open.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-04-27 05:32am

Uraniun235 wrote:Out of curiosity, does this negligence extend to leaving your car windows open by a couple of cm on a hot day? I remember one of my friends had someone visiting from Germany and they were shocked at the fact that I left my windows cracked open.

I think it would. You're not supposed to leave your car like this...

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2005-04-27 02:41pm

Dahak, you laws are sooo fucked up in this example.
Many people in high crime areas, like Chicago or NYC, leave their windows down, with a sign that says "NO RADIO" on the dashboard. This stops window breaking when burglerising happens. If the thief wants to steal the car, the window won't stop them. If simple theft is the goal, the windows being rolled down save the owner from replacement costs of the window. 150 $ at a minimum.
To punish the owner for trying to minimise the damage to his car is wonky to us Americans.
I have a black car, with black interior. Your method of law would punish me for opening the windows on a hot sunny day.
I must fry my interior, and cook for a few minutes getting in because some one MIGHT have an easier time stealing my car?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-04-27 04:32pm

Dahak wrote:I think it would. You're not supposed to leave your car like this...

Meh. It's an older, larger, and fairly common model car, so it's not like someone's going to take the trouble to steal it, especially when there's other and better cars around. I'm not worried. And the radio's pretty cheap.

But hey, whatever. I like the way it is over here and you like the way it is over there. It's all cool.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-27 05:37pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Out of curiosity, does this negligence extend to leaving your car windows open by a couple of cm on a hot day? I remember one of my friends had someone visiting from Germany and they were shocked at the fact that I left my windows cracked open.

The whole concept of negligence has always been subject to a reasonable standard of care. I don't know why people keep insisting on exaggerating it until it becomes "make the problem impossible". These kinds of strawman exaggerations come up every single goddamned time any subject remotely related to negligence comes up. Get some education and read up on the concept before bashing it, people.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-04-27 05:50pm

Wouldn't it be sensible to look at the effects, if we are to yell about how ridiculous these laws are? I don't know much about the source site's credibility(First time I've heard of it, to be honest), but this graph would suggest Germany's measures certainly work better than 'No radio' signs. Nationmonster? New to me.

Honestly, 'No Radio' signs, and we're calling anyone else fucked up?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-27 06:19pm

SirNitram wrote:Wouldn't it be sensible to look at the effects, if we are to yell about how ridiculous these laws are? I don't know much about the source site's credibility(First time I've heard of it, to be honest), but this graph would suggest Germany's measures certainly work better than 'No radio' signs. Nationmonster? New to me.

Honestly, 'No Radio' signs, and we're calling anyone else fucked up?

To be fair, that chart shows total thefts, not per capita thefts.

Given a population of 65 million the US would have ca 248000 thefts. Still pretty high, but less than the UK and France and only marginally higher than Italy.

Given a population of 127 million, the US would have ca. 480000 to Japan's 309000, a difference of ca. +55%. High, but not as monstrously so as the graph suggests.

Given a population of 83 million there would be ca. 317000 thefts to Germany's 83000. Quite a difference there.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-27 07:05pm

On closer inspection, it seems that the UK and France have a population of just over 60 million rather than 65 million (and Italy has just over 58, but I knew that). Anyway I went through the list, worked out the per capita figures, and sorted it:

Australia: 6989
Denmark: 5952
United Kingdom: 5647
New Zealand: 5507
Norway: 5107
France: 4992
Canada: 4931
Italy: 4198
UNITED STATES: 3916
Ireland: 3742
Spain: 3340
Finland: 3144
Portugal: 2517
Japan: 2438
Malaysia: 2378
Netherlands: 2351
South Africa: 2341
Czech Republic: 2337
Poland: 1763
Mexico: 1512
GERMANY: 1008
Colombia: 783
Turkey: 217
Russia: 182
Indonesia: 122

CAVEATS:

1) All the carjacking figures are from 2000 (except the US and Ireland which are from 1999), but the populatio figures are from 2004.

2) The calculations were quick and dirty, accurate to about 3 significant figures or so, since I am a lazy bastard.

3) Most importantly, the cars per capita are not included in the calculation, which they should be. Couldn't find the data. I reckon that Indonesia would be higher on the list if this were taken into account and the US would obviously be a lot lower.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2005-04-27 08:23pm

Sir Nittam, I was refering to the fact that some of us don't live in the best of neighborhoods, and fining some poor guy who just doesn't want his windows broken is fucked up.
That the criminals shit on the citizens is bad enough, but the state is only troubling the innocent party. THAT'S fucked up.
That you would be forced to be more likely to have your car vandalised as WELL as burglerised is fucked up.

As to Germany, I want to see thefts per car ratio, not theft per citizen ratio.
Here in USA we often have more than one car, and simple math will show that buying a second car doubles the chance of theft.
All other things being equal.
Does Germany have the thriving criminal element, with chop shops and the whole nine yards? The pro thieves are disproportionate to the total thefts, and tend to cluster around the big cities.
And rolling up your windows never stopped these guys. They just bust a window, or even use a TOW TRUCK!
"Club"s and alarms don't stop any determined theives.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-28 02:01am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to Germany, I want to see thefts per car ratio, not theft per citizen ratio.

I completely agree, as I indicated in the caveats. I did not have the data, but will post it when I find it.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-28 02:04am

Lord Zentei wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:As to Germany, I want to see thefts per car ratio, not theft per citizen ratio.
I completely agree, as I indicated in the caveats. I did not have the data, but will post it when I find it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tra_mot_veh

Same damn site.

Colour me lazy.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-04-28 02:59am

Here is the #of car thefts per million cars (using the same 25 countries that were at the top of the total car thefts list). Note again that the stats are not exactly from the same years, and this isn't exactly professionally done, but it will give a decent approximation at least.

Annoyingly, the cars per capita for Germany, France and Finland were not given on the site, and I'm too lazy to search. The number I used was the average of the UK and Italy, which is at least moderately reasonable (UK has 426 cars per capita and Italy has 566).

As an aside, the only way Germany can reach US levels on this chart is if the number of cars there is about 197 or less, for comparison, Latvia has 214 and the United Arab Emirates has 193. I.e. Germany is still anomalously low, though it does of course not follow that this is because of the law under discussion. At any rate, the US is not anomalously high.

Colombia: 27000
South Africa: 16034
Denmark: 14588
United Kingdom: 13556
Australia: 11290
Mexico: 10956
Ireland: 10423
Norway: 10338
New Zealand: 9834
Canada: 8758
Italy: 7417
Spain: 7091
Poland: 6755
Czech Republic: 5857
Indonesia: 5809
Netherlands: 5638
UNITED STATES: 5119
Portuga: 4687
Japan: 4490
Malaysia: 3710
Turkey: 3239
Russia: 1468

France: 10065 ?
Finland: 6338 ?
GERMANY: 2032 ?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-28 10:39am

Well most germans dont own a car, the public transportation there from what I hear is very very good.