Police Also Plan to Stab People and Take Their Wallets to Highlight the Risk of Mugging

Jacob Sullum | August 27, 2009

To teach motorists who leave their cars unlocked a lesson, police in Richmond upon Thames, a borough of London, have begun taking their stuff. The victims beneficiaries of these thefts educational efforts return to their cars and find that expensive items such as cameras, laptops, and leather jackets have been replaced by notes instructing them to retrieve their valuables at the police station. Not to worry, though: "If items are needed urgently," the London Times reports, "police will return the goods immediately." Which suggests that if you can't show an urgent need for, say, your computer, they'll take their own sweet time. The justification offered by Superintendent Jim Davis: "People would be far more upset if their property really was stolen."

What's worse than Davis' assumption that when the police violate your property rights it's not really a crime? The supine attitude of the British Automobile Association, which allegedly represents the interests of motorists:

The initiative was welcomed by the AA. "It would be quite irritating for motorists to come back to their car and find that items have gone missing. But on reflection they may think it is better that the stuff has been taken by the police rather than local thieves.

"I would imagine police patience is wearing thin and there have been other projects where they have set up cars as decoys and caught thieves. "

 [Thanks to Mark Lambert for the tip.]

Comments

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Britain looks more like Orwell's vision every day.

Joe M|8.27.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Wow. Everytime I think U.K. has gone off the deep end, they find an even deeper end to go off of.

JCoke|8.27.09 @ 1:19PM|#

my parents used to do that annoying shit... "we need to teach you to take care of your things"

Warty|8.27.09 @ 1:20PM|#

I thought they spelled it reflexion.

|8.27.09 @ 1:21PM|#

This why the aliens won't talk to us. They see shit like this and think to themselves how pathetically stupid our species is.

Tomcat1066|8.27.09 @ 1:22PM|#

And there goes any desire I had to even visit England.

|8.27.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Poor Tomcat will have to work his dental health nightmare fetish out elsewhere. May I suggest Thailand?

Kevin|8.27.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but wouldn't it make more sense, and save everyone a lot of time, if the police left a note explaining that they found the car unlocked, then locked the car? That way the police would actually be HELPFUL.

I, Kahn O\'Clast|8.27.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Speechless.

OTOH back in the 1970's in Pittsburgh during a garbage collection strike there was this fellow who would gift wrap his trash and leave it in his unlocked car once a week. When he would come back for his car at the end of the day his trash would be stolen....

If I lived in London I would be tempted to booby-trap ("bobby-trap"?) my intentionally unlocked car.

ev|8.27.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Oh, Kevin you're adorable!

This is so fucked that it almost has to be an Onion article.

Who the fuck sits down and votes on this? Who at the board meeting gave the presentation on this idea? What was his/her powerpoint background? Was there a guy present who realized that it was fucked but was silently peer-pressured into saying yay?

Fuck that country.

hmm|8.27.09 @ 1:29PM|#

We need to institute this policy in the ghetto and in the rural areas. The numbers of cops roaming the streets will drastically drop in a matter of days.

hmm|8.27.09 @ 1:29PM|#

Some citizen needs to make a bait car and hold the cop and press charges.

|8.27.09 @ 1:30PM|#

There's a reason we fought two wars against these prats.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 1:30PM|#

"People would be far more upset if their property really was stolen."

Umm, fuck you very much with highly polished brass knobs on... the stuff was stolen you fucktard.

|8.27.09 @ 1:30PM|#

I'll follow the white rabbit here...

"We took your laptop for your own good. While we were holding it for you, we found a pirated copy of Livin la Vida Loca and pictures of a seventeen-year-old in a bikini.

Thanks for turning yourself in. This way, please."

Tomcat1066|8.27.09 @ 1:32PM|#

"Poor Tomcat will have to work his dental health nightmare fetish out elsewhere. May I suggest Thailand?"

Eh...I prefer Asian chicks with good teeth. European chicks though, that's a whole different ball game.

I guess I'll just have to wait until they come to visit here ;)

|8.27.09 @ 1:33PM|#

I just don't see how this isn't theft. The cops don't have any right to the property. Its not even evidence of a crime.

Giving stolen property back is not a defense to a charge of theft, BTW.

I wonder if they still have private prosecution of crime in England?

|8.27.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Texas version:

http://www.txdot.gov/drivers_vehicles/consumer_protection/auto_theft/hold_key.htm

tekende|8.27.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Superintendent Jim Davis

I guess Garfield isn't paying all the bills anymore.

|8.27.09 @ 1:39PM|#

Policeman: Oh! Right, what's all this, then?

Chemist: This man has been shoplifting, officer.

Policeman: Oh, he has? Yes?

Chemist: Yes.

Policeman: Are you trying to tell me my job?

Chemist: No, but he's been shoplifting.

Policeman: Look! I must warn you that anything you may say will be ignored and furthermore, given half a chance I'll put my fist through your teeth. F'tang. F'tang.

Man: But officer, this man here...

Policeman: I've had enough of you. You're under arrest.

|8.27.09 @ 1:39PM|#

RC,

It is not theft. It is wrongful appropriation. For it to be theft, the person has to intend to deprive the owner of the property indefinitely. In this case, they are just wrongfully taking the property intending to return it. Regardless, it is still a crime.

|8.27.09 @ 1:40PM|#

expensive items such as cameras, laptops, and leather jackets

Thank God Gillespie won't have to worry about that, since...you know, he's always wearing his.

JK

JB|8.27.09 @ 1:40PM|#

The State is the enemy.

|8.27.09 @ 1:41PM|#

It seems it would behoove thieves that don't work for the gubmint and don't plan on returning the loot should still throw in a note saying it was the police who took it. That should take several weeks of bureaucracy before it's even established that this was a freelance crime, not a sanctioned one.

alan|8.27.09 @ 1:41PM|#

But wait, there is more! David Kramer posted this on Lew the other day:

Pubs warn over plastic pints plan

The Home Office has commissioned a new design, in an attempt to stop glasses being used as weapons. Official figures show 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales. The British Beer and Pub Association said it did not want the new plastic glasses to be made compulsory. (Stop laughing you cynical LRC blog readers.)

Neil Williams from the association said he was concerned that drinkers would notice a drop in quality. "For the drinker, the pint glass feels better, it has a nice weight and the drink coats the glass nicely. That's why people go out for a drink, to have a nice experience." He said there was a danger that pubs with no record of trouble would be penalised. (

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 1:43PM|#

I guess Garfield isn't paying all the bills anymore

lol, I also thought it was hilarious that Christian Bale's character in Harsh Times shared that name.

|8.27.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Great googly moogly. You know I'm actually beginning to look forward to the coming global economic collapse and end of civilization. The social order that rises from the ashes can not help but be populated by beings wiser than ourselves.

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 1:45PM|#

Oops, I mean hilarious.

Thank God Gillespie won't have to worry about that, since...you know, he's always wearing his.

And don't ever touch the jacket.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 1:49PM|#

It is not theft. It is wrongful appropriation.

No John, it's theft. Wrongful appropriation is what happens when public officials misuse public property. That's what private property is, it's property which is private.

If I take my neighbors laptop with the 'promise' to return it, that's not wrongful appropriation, it's theft.

|8.27.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"No John, it's theft. Wrongful appropriation is what happens when public officials misuse public property. That's what private property is, it's property which is private.

If I take my neighbors laptop with the 'promise' to return it, that's not wrongful appropriation, it's theft."

If you take your neighbor's car and drive it to the store but give it back to them later, it is not theft since you never intended to perminently deprive them of it. It is wrongful appropriation. Theft requires the intent to perminently deprive the rightful owner of the property. Being public or private has nothing to do with it.

The Angry Optimist|8.27.09 @ 1:56PM|#

But John, the police don't actually intend to return the property. Theoretically speaking, if you never went to the police station, then the police won't return it. Therefore, theft.

|8.27.09 @ 1:58PM|#

The Law of Unintended Consequences states that ChrisH's 1:41pm post will happen....a lot.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 1:58PM|#

If you take your neighbor's car and drive it to the store but give it back to them later, it is not theft since you never intended to perminently deprive them of it. It is wrongful appropriation.

Take my car, John, some afternoon. I fucking dare you. And if I catch my car gone before you perform your intended return, I'll call 911. If I see you driving back into my driveway with it later, I will press charges. Guess what the charge will be?

Paul|8.27.09 @ 2:00PM|#

John, the more I think about this, you can't be this stupid. Seriously. If that were the case, every car thief in the world would simply declare their intentions to ultimately return the car, and just hadn't gotten around to it.

|8.27.09 @ 2:01PM|#

@sage: Zing!!

|8.27.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Uh, why don't they leave the note and LOCK THE CAR?

|8.27.09 @ 2:04PM|#

what's the difference between the cops taking something from you and giving you the choice of:

a. initiate activity to regain it.

b. do without and accept the loss.


this is the same choice a thief gives you.

grrizzly|8.27.09 @ 2:05PM|#

Every car thief in the world DOES declare their intentions to ultimately return the car.

Corrected

Paul|8.27.09 @ 2:06PM|#

Also John, if you look it up, you'll find the actual charge of 'wrongful appropriation' is mainly a military legal code in the UCMJ.

Read 'em and weep.

|8.27.09 @ 2:06PM|#

The blog about replacing glasses with plastic in the pub reminds me of the stupidity of TSA rules that give me a plastic knife in an airport restaurant, but a real fork!

Paul|8.27.09 @ 2:11PM|#

In the state of Texas, I can shoot someone steal... I mean "Wrongfully Appropriating" my car, if I catch them in the act. Sweet sauce.

|8.27.09 @ 2:13PM|#

It seems to me that a UK-dweller who thought this policy was dumb could do a good bit to discredit it by stealing the notes that the police are leaving behind.

|8.27.09 @ 2:15PM|#

"Also John, if you look it up, you'll find the actual charge of 'wrongful appropriation' is mainly a military legal code in the UCMJ."

I am well aware what it is. And it is absolutely applicable to here. This is no different than a drill instructor taking a recruits stuff to teach him to lock his locker. It is more wrongful approp than it is theft.

Nipplemancer|8.27.09 @ 2:17PM|#

in boot camp, if a drill instructor finds an unlocked footlocker(s) the contents will be found strewn about the squadbay and you have about 15 seconds to gather all of your stuff.

what happens if the article taken by the police from your car has contraband in it, like a gun or drugs?

Thank god we revolted from the English. They're insane for allowing this.

|8.27.09 @ 2:17PM|#

I am well aware what it is. And it is absolutely applicable to here. This is no different than a drill instructor taking a recruits stuff to teach him to lock his locker. It is more wrongful approp than it is theft.


ahhh, i get it. the cops are our superiors, and we are mere subordinates...

|8.27.09 @ 2:19PM|#

This is a police emergency. I need to commandeer your iPod.

(This is meant to help inform the 'appropriation' discussion, above. I mean, there is such a thing as lawful appropriation, right?)

dfd|8.27.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Sorry Paul, but looks like John is right:

The basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.

The Act states that

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

g4mth30ry|8.27.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Let's hope they don't run their health care system like this - "Well Mr. Smith, just so you understand the greatness of our medical system, we've injected you with the HIV virus."

|8.27.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Dammit, John. I looked up the definition of theft in Texas:

(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:

(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;

You will note that there is no reference to indefinite retention of the property. I think the "intent to deprive the owner of property" is pretty easily met here; is there any question that the cops took the property knowingly and intentionally?

Just for grins, I noticed that if a cop commits theft, the crime is escalated:

An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (e)(1)-(6) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that:

(1) the actor was a public servant at the time of the offense and the property appropriated came into the actor's custody, possession, or control by virtue of his status as a public servant;

I also note that:

It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the offense occurred as a result of a deception or strategy on the part of a law enforcement agency, including the use of an undercover operative or peace officer;

(2) the actor was provided by a law enforcement agency with a facility in which to commit the offense or an opportunity to engage in conduct constituting the offense;

I think this would prohibit a defense that the property was taken as part of an official police program.

|8.27.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Nipplemancer | August 27, 2009, 2:17pm | #

what happens if the article taken by the police from your car has contraband in it, like a gun or drugs?

in the U.S.
most certainly a good lawyer would have it thrown out as a fourth amend violation...

not arguing for the police, just looking to answer that specific question. all in all it's still bs...

|8.27.09 @ 2:24PM|#

God Damn It RC. It depends on the Jurisdiction. I see your Texas and raise you Ohio

5924.121 Larceny - wrongful appropriation.
(A) Any person subject to this code who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property, or article of value of any kind:

(1) With intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny; or

(2) With intent temporarily to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any other person other than the owner, is guilty of wrongful appropriation

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5924.121

They didn't intend to perminently deprive them of the property. It is wrongful approp.

Tomcat1066|8.27.09 @ 2:25PM|#

"And it is absolutely applicable to here. This is no different than a drill instructor taking a recruits stuff to teach him to lock his locker."

Actually, it's a huge difference. The civilian world and the military world have practically nothing in common. You essentially give up many of your rights when you enlist, including free speech and your right to privacy, as well as the requirement for a warrant before a search is conducted.

Comparing the civilian world to the military world is like comparing apples to a Chevy Nova.

|8.27.09 @ 2:25PM|#

dfd | August 27, 2009, 2:20pm | #

Sorry Paul, but looks like John is right:
The basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.

The Act states that

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.


as i stated before, if the police have a remedy that requires you to take action to retrieve your possessions, it seems they have placed the burden on YOU. an active INTENT to return the items, would seem to require that THEY sought to do so. does that make sense?

|8.27.09 @ 2:26PM|#

I would say, then, that this would pretty clearly be a crime in Texas, but appears not to be one in England, per dfd @ 2:20 pm.

|8.27.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Depends on the jurisdiction RC. England, apparently like Ohio, recognizes the crime of wrongful appropriation. Some jurisdictions, like Texas apparently, see it all as theft.

|8.27.09 @ 2:28PM|#

well shit, if we're talking about the law vs right and wrong, then i'll take the Chevy Nova...

|8.27.09 @ 2:29PM|#

It depends on the Jurisdiction.

True. Although it is a crime in both Texas and Ohio, and I like ransom147's argument that the police may or may not have the requisite intent to return.

If my neighbor sneaks off with my lawnmower and keeps it in his garage, do you suppose he would get off on a theft charge (even in Ohio) if he said he would give it back to me if I came over and asked for it? I kind of doubt it.

|8.27.09 @ 2:33PM|#

But if you left a note on your neighbor's porch saying, "your lawn mower is in my garage I took it because you left it out and it was in danger of being stolen you can come and get it anytime" it is hard to argue that is theft and not wrongful approp.

JB|8.27.09 @ 2:37PM|#

It seems it would behoove thieves that don't work for the gubmint and don't plan on returning the loot should still throw in a note saying it was the police who took it. That should take several weeks of bureaucracy before it's even established that this was a freelance crime, not a sanctioned one.

Almost makes me want to go there and have fun with that.

And if you are noticed by someone going into their car, just say you are working for the police, describe the program, and show your fake badge, and then go onto the next car.

JB|8.27.09 @ 2:38PM|#

"Police Also Plan to Stab People and Take Their Wallets to Highlight the Risk of Mugging"

Jacob, don't give them ideas!!!

|8.27.09 @ 2:40PM|#

Even more reasonable would be the note that says "your [non rain-resistant property] is in my garage I took it because you left it out and the thunderstorm / flash flood warning made it seem likely that it could get destroyed by weather before you returned home. You can come and get it anytime"

A neighbor who tries to press charges for that would seem to be a jerk, to me.

|8.27.09 @ 2:43PM|#

Of course, there's no possibility someone might have deliberately left their car unlocked so that a friend could swing by and pick up something while they were away.

|8.27.09 @ 2:45PM|#

Theft/Wrongful appropriation? Who cares, I know I'd be seriously pissed! I also know that If that happened to me, I'd be very tempted to steal stuff out of peoples cars leaving notes from the police. If it weren't for the hassle, I'd also be tempted to steal stuff leaving a note that they could come get it back from me at their leisure. I wouldn't even make them wait in lines, or fill out any stupid forms. I suspect they'd like to thank me for saving them from have to deal with the police. :)

Michael|8.27.09 @ 2:47PM|#

You know what would be a real shame? If motorists began leaving tote bags with dye packs in them in their unlocked vehicles for whatever reason.

|8.27.09 @ 2:48PM|#

It is fashionable to view the English embrace of totalitarianism as a relatively recent phenomenon. Such a view is, of course, uninformed.

|8.27.09 @ 2:50PM|#

Mike,

But it is a lot worse now. Everyone who value freedome either moved to the colonies are died in the fields of France. All that is left now are the busybodies and the sheep.

Tricky Prickears|8.27.09 @ 2:52PM|#

In NJ there's "Taking without owner's permission". Like if your buddy takes your keys while you are sleeping or something like that. It's a municipal offense, rather than a third degree felony of grand theft auto.

|8.27.09 @ 2:55PM|#

The American Automobile Association is just as supine. Triple A has supported police roadblocks/mandatory seatbelts/higher speeding fines/MADD initiatives and greater "investment" in "infrastructure."

|8.27.09 @ 2:55PM|#

if the cops do something that forces you to act on your own behalf, it is at least theft of time, which is as much a theoretical means of production as any tangible resource.

further they do it with crews of unelected jackasses on your own dime.

if you're neighbor does you this favor, i doubt it rises to the same level of assholery as the police and the state.

also if your neighbor intends to keep your property until you come get it, and absent you taking that step, proceeds to liquidate your property and use the $ to fix up his house; then yes it's theft.

|8.27.09 @ 2:56PM|#

"if you're neighbor"


what the hell is my problem today?

|8.27.09 @ 2:59PM|#

John-

How long have they had national health insurance? Hasn't it been in place a long, long time?

Zeb|8.27.09 @ 2:59PM|#

I want to start a program encouraging people not to lock their cars. I never lock my car, so I think that I would be safer if no one else did either.

To the people arguing with John, I don't think he is trying to say that the police in this case are not guilty of any crime. He is simply saying that the crime would better be described as wrongful appropriation than as theft.

|8.27.09 @ 3:00PM|#

"Not to worry, though: 'If items are needed urgently,' the London Times reports, 'police will return the goods immediately.'"

Question: if the gov't found itself strapped for revenue, how quickly would this be amended, with property thus seized being declared forfeit?

Abdul|8.27.09 @ 3:04PM|#

John remembers his Bar-bri courses far too well. You're supposed to drink away the memories!

But he's right about the common law aspects of the crime theft. There are hundreds of cases which law professors use to make minute distinctions between theft, embezzelemnt, larceny, wrongful appropriation, etc. Most jurisdictions got sick of the nonsense and have replaced the common law definition with simpler statutory definitions. I'd guess England did that too.

Under PA law, just opening someone else's car door can be a violation of unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. 18 Pa C.S. 3928.

|8.27.09 @ 3:06PM|#

Off topic-

My wife is very upset about the Teddy Kenedy procession as she works near Boston's North End. She and several of her colleagues had to cancel a lunch they had planned for one of their coworkers who is moving to California (yeah, I told my wife that her coworker is nuts). Apparently Hanover Street and other North End thoroughfares were shut down.

Robert|8.27.09 @ 3:10PM|#

Similarly for at least a long time in Mass. auto theft wasn't prosecuted as such, but as unauthorized use of a vehicle, since it was difficult to prove such user intended to convert the vehicle to hir own property -- unless it was chopped for parts. Maybe it's still that way there.

Joe M|8.27.09 @ 3:12PM|#

LibertyMike- Come on, how much difference is there between Mass. and Cali, really?

|8.27.09 @ 3:14PM|#

The American Automobile Association is just as supine. Triple A has supported police roadblocks/mandatory seatbelts/higher speeding fines/MADD initiatives and greater "investment" in "infrastructure."

I have been a member for years for the benefits, but never knew they lobbied for such things. Now I have to write letters to them telling them to knock it off and be willing to cancel my membership if they decline.

Damn you Mike! I have enough shit to deal with just knowing what I know about government. My ignorance of this AAA bullshit was a positive in my life.

|8.27.09 @ 3:18PM|#

Joe M-

Don't mistake my post as some kind of endorsement of Massachusetts. It was not. However, why would one move, voluntarily, to california?

|8.27.09 @ 3:20PM|#

Joe M-

Yeah, in 1970, when I was 7 years old, California seemed way cool. Sure, I suppose I felt that way until my mid twenties.

|8.27.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Also John, if you look it up, you'll find the actual charge of 'wrongful appropriation' is mainly a military legal code in the UCMJ.

Read 'em and weep.

Paul, did you even bother reading that document? If you go to the page immediately preceding the one you linked to, you'll see that it clearly says that one of the elements of the crime of larceny is:

"That the taking, obtaining, or withholding by the accused was done with the intent to
permanently deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of the property or to permanently appropriate the property for the use of the accused or for any person other than the owner" (emphasis added).

|8.27.09 @ 3:21PM|#

Nick-

Like you, I am a member just for the benefits.

|8.27.09 @ 3:22PM|#

Similarly for at least a long time in Mass. auto theft wasn't prosecuted as such, but as unauthorized use of a vehicle, since it was difficult to prove such user intended to convert the vehicle to hir own property -- unless it was chopped for parts.

That's why many jurisdictions created the separate offense of "joyriding," because under the laws regarding auto theft, if you could persuade a jury that you really just intended to get your thrills driving the victim's car around, then ditch it somewhere, you were entitled to an acquittal.

|8.27.09 @ 3:25PM|#

also if your neighbor intends to keep your property until you come get it, and absent you taking that step, proceeds to liquidate your property and use the $ to fix up his house; then yes it's theft.

Interesting question, that. Just what do the cops plan to do with the unclaimed stuff?

|8.27.09 @ 3:28PM|#

The English legal system is fucked up if this, and all their other Orwellian crap, cannot be defeated easily in court.

|8.27.09 @ 3:34PM|#

could it be that the common law distinctions between various types of appropriation were a result of the stiff penalties once meted out to thieves, e.g., cutting off the hand, branding, hanging, etc?

|8.27.09 @ 3:36PM|#

R C Dean | August 27, 2009, 3:25pm | #


Interesting question, that. Just what do the cops plan to do with the unclaimed stuff?


well, the cynic in me says they use it to their own advantage, like they do w/ drug money here. but i don't know. we all know what that type of incentivism has done here in the states...

|8.27.09 @ 3:41PM|#

So, just to beat this to death:

My neighbor sneaks off with my lawnmower and locks it in his garage. He leaves me a note that says "I have your mower. If you want it back, you have to come and ask. If you don't get it within a year, I'm selling it to reupholster my La-Z-Boy."

Theft/wrongful appropriation?

What if I don't go and get it, and he sells it? Does that make it theft?

Change the hypo so its the local chapter of MS-13 and my car, and the note says I have to go to the chapter's clubhouse in Nuevo Laredo.

|8.27.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Change the hypo so its the local chapter of MS-13 and my car, and the note says I have to go to the chapter's clubhouse in Nuevo Laredo.

but the border is so lovely this time of year, it's really to your advantage!

|8.27.09 @ 3:51PM|#

oops R C, i had a handle malfunction. not meant for you....

|8.27.09 @ 3:52PM|#

Worse, I think it's counterproductive and actually encourages theft. It's a good bet that they'll resume they're habit of leaving the car unlocked. If you know the cops got someone's stuff, you know a good car to try and what you might find.

hurlybuerhle|8.27.09 @ 3:53PM|#

@LibertyMike and Joe M:

I moved to Mass. from Calif. last year. California is much, much, much worse.

Seward|8.27.09 @ 3:54PM|#

Whatever one wants to call it, this is bullshit. In the first place, the state really has no business telling me how I should or should not store my valuables.

Also this could backfire of course (government's unintended consequences are legion as we know). Imagine thieves now masquerading as police officers robbing cars and pretending that they were unlocked. A good Samaritan or passerby who inquires about the activity will be told this is merely a police operation.

|8.27.09 @ 4:14PM|#

oops R C, i had a handle malfunction. not meant for you....

Although I found it quite apropos.

mr simple|8.27.09 @ 4:22PM|#

I like this:
"I would imagine police patience is wearing thin"

"Would you people stop being victims of crimes? We're tired of doing our job."

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:25PM|#

Paul, did you even bother reading that document? If you go to the page immediately preceding the one you linked to, you'll see that it clearly says that one of the elements of the crime of larceny is:

Seamus, did you even bother reading that document? It applies to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and all the examples given are the taking of service vehicles or service weapons to go hunting with your friends.

If you're a civilian and you take my car with the pinkie promise to return it, but hey, just haven't gotten around to it yet, it's Grand Theft Auto. End of discussion.

That's why many jurisdictions created the separate offense of "joyriding," because under the laws regarding auto theft, if you could persuade a jury that you really just intended to get your thrills driving the victim's car around, then ditch it somewhere, you were entitled to an acquittal

No, you would be guilty of joyriding, not acquittal. Also, many jurisdictions don't have this distinction because an element of car theft often leads to ditching later. Plus, ditching is not returning the car to its righful owner, it's ditching it.

Doug|8.27.09 @ 4:27PM|#

They ought to install cameras everywhere to solve their theft problem. Wait a minute...

|8.27.09 @ 4:28PM|#

May if the british would just permit lethal force to be used to protect property like we do in Fl property theft wouldnt be such a problem.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:28PM|#

get off on a theft charge (even in Ohio) if he said he would give it back to me if I came over and asked for it? I kind of doubt it.

R C Dean, the cops will ask you if you want to press charges. Like I told John, guess what that charge is likely going to be? It won't be "wrongful appropriation".

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:30PM|#

"your lawn mower is in my garage I took it because you left it out and it was in danger of being stolen you can come and get it anytime" it is hard to argue that is theft and not wrongful approp.

John, you know your neighbor and in this case would likely work that out with him. I don't know the cops. They don't know me. Theft writ large.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:36PM|#

John, observe from your link:

: Ohio Revised Code» TITLE [59] LIX VETERANS -- MILITARY AFFAIRS» CHAPTER 5924: CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

So, now that we've agreed that it's theft...

|8.27.09 @ 4:37PM|#

No, you would be guilty of joyriding, not acquittal.

Unless the jurisdiction hadn't created the joyriding crime yet, which was his point, no?

I have been a member for years for the benefits, but never knew they lobbied for such things. Now I have to write letters to them telling them to knock it off and be willing to cancel my membership if they decline.

Yeah, if you want to lobby for the other side, you have to throw a few bucks to the take-no-prisoners libertarian National Motorists Association.

|8.27.09 @ 4:39PM|#

How libertarian is the NMA? They're a for-profit! Acutally, that's apparently so that they don't have to worry about the government and IRS pressuring them over their lobbying. (Since they lobby for the "wrong" side that all decent men oppose.)

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:48PM|#

John Thacker:

Unless the jurisdiction hadn't created the joyriding crime yet, which was his point, no?

Not how I read it. The creation of joyriding was to create a lower offense for people who "borrowed your car without consent but with the intent to release the car to the public domain on an adjacent or street somewhere within the legal jurisdiction". Ie, jurisdictions without a joyriding ordinance on the books. Ie, sans joyriding ordinance, you're guilty of GTA.

However, I think John et. al. have convinced me. The legal definition of Larceny:

To constitute larceny several ingredients are necessary. The intent of the party must be felonious; he must intend to appropriate the property of another to his own use. If the accused have taken the goods under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed a larceny.

My guess is the cops in England will claim it was their right. So it probably does not fall under the definition of theft/larceny.

Paul|8.27.09 @ 4:56PM|#

Also, there's a wiki answer which claims Wrongful Appropriation is restricted to the military. But it's a wiki answer, so it's not like I'm going to link to it and say 'see?'.

However, almost every link I find that speaks with any authority on the subject of "Wrongful appropriation" still falls under military codes. See Kentucky:

35.670 Larceny -- Wrongful appropriation.
(1) Any person subject to this code who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property or articles of value of any kind:

(a) With intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny; or

(b) With intent temporarily to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, is guilty of wrongful appropriation.

(2) Any person found guilty of larceny or wrongful appropriation shall be punished as a court-martial directs.

etc.

Chapter 40
Military Justice
Section 40.405

Larceny or wrongful appropriation of property--court-martial.

Cliché Bandit|8.27.09 @ 6:57PM|#

About the wrongful appropriation discussion:
There is a wonderful story about a guy in Arizona who fought his HOA's parking contractor...DOLLYMAN!
I think this is probably the most awesome civil disobedience ever.

SCREW YOU!!!

hmm|8.27.09 @ 8:01PM|#

It's theft creating a fucked up sort of bailment since there is no intent to take ownership, but the taking is theft.

It's fucking wrong no matter what you call it. You could call it bunnyfuckingfoowithsprinklesandcuppycakes, and it's still fucking wrong.

Rich|8.27.09 @ 10:02PM|#

What's worse than Davis' assumption that when the police violate your property rights it's not really a crime?

The assertion that by leaving your car unlocked you are guilty of entrapment.

|8.28.09 @ 9:14AM|#

Not how I read it.

Then you read it wrong. I specificially said, "under the laws regarding auto theft . . . you were entitled to an acquittal," and that the offense of joyriding was therefore created. I was obviously talking about a jurisdiction where the offense didn't already exist.

|8.28.09 @ 9:21AM|#

Seamus, did you even bother reading that document? It applies to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and all the examples given are the taking of service vehicles or service weapons to go hunting with your friends.

Whether of not that's the case, my point was that its definition of "larceny" requires intent to deprive the owner permanently, and was thus consistent with the definitions of larceny or theft that many other people on this thread have quoted.

|8.28.09 @ 1:39PM|#

We may have revolted against the empirical tyranny 233 years ago but our tax burden will match theirs soon enough. It was a good effort though. Personally, I'm looking forward to "cash for fridges."