Current Events > If you steal someone's car then commit a crime using it before they reported

(+) Yeah! (+)

the car being stolen, would they not be held accountable for the crime?

Came across this story recently and I thought it should be easy for the police to find out who owns the car and where they live, but people brought up the fact that thieves could just falsely claim they did not participate in the crime in any way or its their car and it was stolen from them.
https://www.moneycrashers.com/wallet-purse-lost-stolen/

On a side note, if bank cards are reported stolen and disabled, why cant attempting to use a disabled one at an atm alert the bank and they trap you to prevent you from fleeing until the cops arrive?

or the bank tricks you into entering your name, then it legally adds all caps THIEF to your name until you turn yourself into the cops or they get you

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

On a side note, if bank cards are reported stolen and disabled, why cant attempting to use a disabled one at an atm alert the bank and they trap you to prevent you from fleeing until the cops arrive?

Because the three people they catch won't be worth the dozens of false alarms.

Multiply the scale as needed.

---

DrizztLink posted...

Because the three people they catch won't be worth the dozens of false alarms.

Multiply the scale as needed.

why are you using a bank card you dont know is stolen in the first place? Pretty sure that is also a crime

---

Simply being the owner of the car is not generally considered proof that you were the one using it. It'd make you a lead they'd follow up, but it wouldn't in and of itself establish guilt.

---

Trumble posted...

Simply being the owner of the car is not generally considered proof that you were the one using it. It'd make you a lead they'd follow up, but it wouldn't in and of itself establish guilt.

wouldnt anything you say to police be incriminating evidence when questioned?

saying something like I didnt know this car was stolen sounds to me as much excuse as when I used this credit card, I didnt know it was stolen

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

wouldnt anything you say to police be incriminating evidence when questioned?

saying something like I didnt know this car was stolen sounds to me as much excuse as when I used this credit card, I didnt know it was stolen

How would the actual owner of a credit card, use that card while it's stolen?

If you're meaning in the sense of them claiming "it was stolen, it wasn't me" to get out of a bill - the first thing I'd note is that settling a bill would be a civil matter, which only requires proof to the extent of "more likely than not"; unlike a criminal charge which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Trumble posted...

How would the actual owner of a credit card, use that card while it's stolen?

the actual owner wouldnt, but lets say anyone finds a random card on the street and decides to use it or the person who stole your credit card tried to use it.

or you be an idiot like this guy

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/997614-nintendo-3ds/66754158

---

Now that I think of it, given that thieves and murderers probably have their own lives and groceries to buy why doesnt every location require you to show id to forward to your cops so if it turns out you are wanted, the movie theater, store or whatever place would have your info

I believe you must show id to pawn shops so I thought every location could do the same thing

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

Now that I think of it, given that thieves and murderers probably have their own lives and groceries to buy why doesnt every location require you to show id to forward to your cops so if it turns out you are wanted, the movie theater, store or whatever place would have your info

I believe you must show id to pawn shops so I thought every location could do the same thing

Jesus fucking christ.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Jesus fucking christ.

why? It would make it much harder to hide from police if you are wanted by them, especially for murder

if you are not a criminal youd have nothing to worry

---

oi, this guy.

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

why? It would make it much harder to hide from police if you are wanted by them, especially for murder

if you are not a criminal youd have nothing to worry

Two reasons.

Firstly, even people with nothing to hide and no reason to feel they'd be unfairly targetted, often don't feel comfortable about that level of surveillance. Not all such people, but many still do. That's without going into people who do have reasons (justified or otherwise) to believe they'd be unfairly targetted, or people who have very minor insignificant things to hide like that they smoke weed in a place where it's still illegal.

Secondly, it'd be utterly impractical. Think about how long it can already take to get through a queue at a shop, or get served at takeaways - now add an ID check to that. Now think about what if the system goes down. Or the fact that you'd essentially be unable to use anything if you forgot / lost your ID. For that matter, what about people who don't have ID? On the flipside, what are the cops actually going to be doing? Under such a system, people who are wanted woud likely get a clean accomplice to visit stores, or use a fake or stolen ID. Chances are that anyone who actually gets caught out by this, would likely get caught out anyway.

I do get where you're coming from. But this is one of those ideas that, while it might seem okay at a quick glance, is neither acceptable nor practical when you look deeper at it.

---

Trumble posted...

For that matter, what about people who don't have ID?

you mean little children?

as for stolen id, wouldnt it be obvious the id was stolen, especially if it was flagged before?

---

Whose kid is this

Is TC going to make a billion topics about stealing cars now?

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

you mean little children?

as for stolen id, wouldnt it be obvious the id was stolen, especially if it was flagged before?

Not every adult has ID either. And not necesserially - even without the fact that "if it was flagged before" is an "if". You're also adding more to the "impractical" part if there's further a system for flagging stolen IDs at play - now the ID check you've already added to every transaction, is not just a one-way upload of data, but has to wait on a response as well. How much time do you think that's going to add to every single thing people do throughout their day?

And all this, again, would likely only catch small-time, dumb criminals. I'm all for being tough on crime, and for increasing the rate of accurately solving it, but even ignoring the moral side of things, this proposal is majorly a case of "costs outweigh the benefits". It's not even close.

---

To get a credit card you can do it online. Checking account with a debit card you do need id. I'm pretty sure its been a while.

No, of course not. The only time the owner of the car is held accountable without being present, is when they allow an unlicensed driver to borrow their car. In my state, that can get your car impounded for 30 days. Doesn't matter if you own the car and you have a valid license. If someone unlicensed was driving and it wasn't stolen, then that's your fault and it stays impounded for the full 30 days.

Anything else though, they may seek out the owner for something like a hit and run, but the owner isn't automatically at fault, unless it can be proven that they were driving at the time.

---

muchdran posted...

To get a credit card you can do it online. Checking account with a debit card you do need id. I'm pretty sure its been a while.

why bring this up?

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

why bring this up?

Trying to remember, I think you need an id number when doing it online. If you went to a branch you have to have id.

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

instead of sleeping at home why doesn't everybody just sleep at the jail and if you haven't committed a crime they let you go in the morning?

way too little jail cells to fit everyone

---

Even if the car was reported stolen, its still a stretch to say because you stole a car, you also committed these crimes the car was involved in after it was stolen. Someone could belong to a gang, steal a car, and let other gang members take the car and commit crimes with it.

---

Pitlord_Special posted...

Even if the car was reported stolen, its still a stretch to say because you stole a car, you also committed these crimes the car was involved in after it was stolen

wouldnt that be a conspiracy?


---

You have to examine the facts of the case...

You can't just give a general scenario and apply a one-size-fits-all blanket statement on it.

Not saying the cops and prosecutors do their due diligence, either, though. They'd just as likely charge the car thief with everything and call it a day, unless there was reporting or the car thief had a solid alibi that physically precluded the possibility of them committing the crime before the car was reported stolen.

---

Hexenherz posted...

You have to examine the facts of the case...

You can't just give a general scenario and apply a one-size-fits-all blanket statement on it.

Not saying the cops and prosecutors do their due diligence, either, though. They'd just as likely charge the car thief with everything and call it a day, unless there was reporting or the car thief had a solid alibi that physically precluded the possibility of them committing the crime before the car was reported stolen.

if you stole a car then it was used to commit another crime, it may suck that you were charged with other crimes but you committed one yourself. If you belonged to a gang or something, you could report other gang members.

if your car was stolen, why didnt you report or notice it missing immediately?

---

BalloonBattle05 posted...

if you stole a car then it was used to commit another crime, it may suck that you were charged with other crimes but you committed one yourself. If you belonged to a gang or something, you could report other gang members.

That's not how the law works though. They would need evidence that you're also guilty of the other crime.

if your car was stolen, why didnt you report or notice it missing immediately?

That actually is something that's looked at if there's a suspiciously long time between a car being stolen and the theft being reported.

---

NoxObscuras posted...

That's not how the law works though. They would need evidence that you're also guilty of the other crime

they realistically should need evidence but I suppose its just easy to pin the blame on you.

But you stole the car so you shouldnt think you should get away scot free.

---

If the car was stolen then of course you should be charged for that. If other people then use it to commit crimes, then you could possibly be charged as an accomplice or aiding those crimes even if you didn't have it in your possession.

Not sure what weird loophole you're trying to find here.

---

Hexenherz posted...

If the car was stolen then of course you should be charged for that. If other people then use it to commit crimes, then you could possibly be charged as an accomplice or aiding those crimes even if you didn't have it in your possession.

Not sure what weird loophole you're trying to find here.

didnt you just say this?

Hexenherz posted...

You have to examine the facts of the case...

You can't just give a general scenario and apply a one-size-fits-all blanket statement on it.

---

I did. You specified that a person stole the car - the car thief should be held responsible for that.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I did. You specified that a person stole the car - the car thief should be held responsible for that.

im saying that ideally you should only be charged for the theft but not for others. However, I suppose its just easy to slap you with everything. If you know others who committed other crimes using the car, maybe you could turn them in and share the bill.

---