Issue that is being overlooked. They can't charge him with the theft of the vehicle. there is zero proof of that. At best they have a Possession of Stolen Property. Depending on the details of the incident that is going to net little jail time unless the record is extensive.

A lot of risk for little return beyond the car itself.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Issue that is being overlooked. They can't charge him with the theft of the vehicle. there is zero proof of that. At best they have a Possession of Stolen Property. Depending on the details of the incident that is going to net little jail time unless the record is extensive.

A lot of risk for little return beyond the car itself.

No proof? How do you figure? So have him turn over the person who gave him the vehicle. Cause someone stole it. It didn't just magically end up in his possession.

Chief Wiggum said it best...

We cant just go around "policing" the whole city...

quote:

Issue that is being overlooked. They can't charge him with the theft of the vehicle.

If I had an uninsured car stolen, I'd be pleased just to get it back.

super risky trick there. i can't blame him, though it would not be my choice however expensive. maybe stake it out and follow the buyer or seller and wait for the police to catch up with the buyer or seller. but my guess is most of the time the police would totally ignore you in that situation or "send a unit when available". they have their own procedures and beauracracies to deal with and are not really interested in petty crimes, and in some cities, auto theft falls into that category.

So how would this have worked for the car theif if he had an honest buyer?

Title transfer and such, how do you explain this to the buyer?

Why would anyone pay for a car when the seller does not have the title?

Is it simply that we are required to keep the title paperwork in the car, and the theif pretends to be the person whose name is on the paperwork?

Follow-up question then would be why do we keep vehicle ownership paperwork in the vehicle?

They could have just gotten the car back and beat the living shit out of the guy who stole it. But it was nice of them to call the Police. Good upstanding armed citizens.

All’s well that ends well.

It wasn't mentioned in the article, but I wonder if the car owner called local LE to tell them the stolen car was listed on the web? I would do that first.

To the LEOs reading this. How would a call like this be handled.

Seems to be an ongoing issue in that area

June 2017

https://komonews.com/news/loca...nt-til-police-arrive

quote:

EVERETT, Wash. - An Everett couple went searching for their stolen Range Rover Sunday morning, then pulled a gun on the suspected car thief when they found it in a busy parking lot.

Police say around 3:30 p.m. Sunday, a couple got into their car and started searching for their stolen SUV. They drove around searching the streets of Everett, then spotted their stolen vehicle in front of the McDonald’s on Evergreen Way.

“They kind of blocked it in. The male driver got out with a gun, ran up to the car, and demanded the occupants stay and wait until police arrived,” said Everett Police Department spokesman Aaron Snell.

Oh....and the obligatory:

quote:

Police said the owner of the Land Rover did not commit a crime, but while no one got hurt, they never recommend citizens handle matters like this themselves.

What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

Anybody think that could be legally problematic?

Edit: If you're answer is "No way would I shoot him", then why are you pointing a gun at him?

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

Anybody think that could be legally problematic?

Bruce

Not in some states.

I like the crab trap thought.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

Same question, but him saying it to the cops instead of the car's owner...

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

Same question, but him saying it to the cops instead of the car's owner...

Cop or civilian who stands to lose property, you don't shoot someone fleeing the scene of a crime.

The LEOs and lawyers can correct me, but that sounds like murder.

Stuff is stuff. If it's not worth dying for, it's not worth killing for.

My .02

Bruce

LEO can and do use sub-lethal force to capture and detain people suspected of committing crimes. If a suspect resists to the point of presenting a lethal threat, lethal force can be used to defend against that threat. What would happen if, in the type of situation that started this thread, the people who initiated the sting tried to detain the alleged car thief, and the thief resist's with potentially lethal force.

A few random thoughts from someone who lives in the general area where this happened and has a little experience on how the cops in this area work...


One thing I learned pretty quick at my job is there are a LOT of folks who would just as soon steal a car to get somewhere as wait for a bus. Surprising how common it is, rough guess is my agency alone does 10-15 or more a day. Extrapolating that out to the greater Seattle area (Seattle-Tacoma-Everett and surrounding suburbs) 100 a day would probably be a conservative guess.

Majority of them are older Hondas, older Toyotas, older Datsun/Nissans, and older pick ups. Seems some cars are much easier to steal than others. Pretty rare for me to send stolen veh info for data entry on anything newer than about 2005.

You or I may be at a point in life where we have multiple vehicles that are hard to steal and fully insured, as such having a car stolen isn’t much more than an “inconvenience”. Meanwhile, there are a lot of folks whose old POS 94 Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is the most expensive thing they own and without it, their life damn near comes to a halt not being able to get to/from work or provide for their family. I think many of us would be surprised at the number of good, hard working people who’s livelihood depends on a $1000-$1500 car.

Also pretty rare those folks can afford the insurance coverage to replace it after a theft. It doesn’t say what kind of car was involved in this case, but I can certainly see the victims motivation in going “self-service” to get it back if he was in a similar situation without being able to rely on insurance to replace it.



“Occupied stolen vehicle” is going to be a pretty quick response in most cases. Unless something major is going on at the same time in the same area, cops are going to be on the way within 2-3 minutes of the call being made. Pretty much no agency in the area does pursuits anymore, so they will try to get there before it can take off.

Yup, very little case for the theft charge and PSP is usually they way it goes. You’d be surprised how many will admit to theft though because it is to the point where you have to be caught 6-7 times before anything drastic really happens. I seem to remember a study that said for every time a car thief is caught, they have stolen 7-8 other cars and not been. That means it isn’t “serious” until what, the 50th theft or so?

Regardless of what can be charged, every cop I know really likes to recover vehicles *when there is a bad guy inside*. They all seem to enjoy making every felony arrest they can especially when it doesn’t tie them up for two hours or more like a DUI does.

I am not affiliated with Everett PD, but the agency I do work for would most likely have 2-4 units responding code two (lights) to a call of “I found my stolen car at Safeway with some dude in it”. Add in the ”Me and my buddies have him at gun point...” part and that’s when the sirens get turned on along with anyone else in the area coming, possibly to include calling any neighboring agencies to see who they might have in the area.



You’d be surprised how many people keep the TITLE in the glove box, not just the registration. That makes it easily to sell. Never underestimate the willingness of some victims to believe in the good of strangers. “Bill of sale along with a lost title report and DOL will take care of it”, sounds legit to some people who don’t have much experience buying cars. Often times the buyer is just another criminal who knows or doesn’t care if the car is stolen.



While I am a pretty sure I would not be acting as this guy did, I will not fault him for it. Our “system” is falling apart and the criminals fear the law less and less everyday. Maybe if they started fearing would-be victims and seeing some of their own getting their asses handed to them they would think twice.

Sacrificing some meth-head tweakers in real “vigilante justice” might be what is needed to swing city managers and prosecutors back to thinking about making enforcement and prosecution as important as social programs, instead of looking at it as “just a property crime” and “that’s what insurance is for”.


Not too long ago we had the armed good samaritans thwart the the tool theft in Marysville with a shoot out. Seems like the public is starting to get into the mood to take care of the stuff our elected officials can’t or won’t. Certainly carries some risks, but I can get behind the sentiment.

“Our” elected officials only care about enabling junkies, dopers, tweakers, illegals, and their own pocketbooks.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

Same question, but him saying it to the cops instead of the car's owner...

He leaves, the cop calls his 24 buddies and a vehicle pursuit ensues.

Funny thing about these "yeehaw, hell yeah, sic him boys" threads is that the vigilantes, for lack of a better term, swallow 100 percent of the liability for their actions. They get into a car chase at 100 MPH, they're going to jail. They try to wedge SYG into something that doesn't fit, they're going to jail.

From nearly 25 years now of being on the job, the whole "Cops won't do nuttin" is an interesting claim to me. I most often hear it from someone wanting the cops to do something that clearly isn't legal. For instance, a man and woman going through a divorce, both still own a house, and one party takes a bunch of the marital property and sells it. The other party tries to claim that He/She stole the washer/dryer/fridge/etc. When clearly the property belongs to both parties through a marital agreement, and both/either party can sell it. I hear "cops didndunuffin/won't DO THEIR JOB" the most during those cases.

And while all cops aren't created equal, I buy stolen property in an undercover capacity quite often. I bought some stolen industrial equipment Friday. I'm going to try to buy some other stuff tomorrow. I WANT the shitbags to always wonder if it is the police on the other side of that message.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:

What if the guy had said "Go ahead. Shoot me. I dare you" and tried to leave? Shoot him?

BANG!

(Before anybody comments, no, I'm not serious.)