The Hyundai Santa Fe he was in recovered in Everett as well. Police are now looking for the guy they think took both in Orient Heights yesterday - he has a history of attacking cops. Jim Morelli reports Chief is in good shape. He is back with his owner.
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Welcome home Chief!
Happy to hear this guy is known to the authorities. I think they should introduce him to K-9s that don't exactly share Chief's temperament.
Any more details you can share about the recovery? Was the dog still in the car when he was found? If so, did the thief crack open the windows to assure the dog didn't die of heat stroke? Either way, this is great to hear that the owner and Chief will be re-united. Hopefully a lesson well learned and she won't be leaving the car running and unlocked with valuable cargo still inside.
Cars should not need to have ignition locks.
It probably is a good idea to have a system that locks up until a key is in the area. Many remote start systems work like this - car will start, stuff like AC will run, but car won't move until the key shows up.
If for no other reason than to keep fido from taking an accidental test drive when he sees a letter carrier and goes nuts and bumps the shifter.
I am the anon that wrote the original comment, and if you want to call this victim blaming go right ahead, I won't argue with you. Anyone that leaves a car running with the keys in it while they aren't there is taking an unnecessary risk that it can be stolen. The thief in this situation is obviously much more to blame, but there's very little chance this would have happened if the victim didn't leave her car running with her pet inside.
On a much smaller scale, something very similar happened to me and my wife, and we "victim-blamed" ourselves. A few months back my wife forgot to close our car door before coming inside for the night. Even though it was in our own driveway in a relatively quiet area, someone saw this as an easy opportunity and stole a few items from the car. Was it 100% our fault? No - someone clearly knew what they were doing was wrong when they went into the car and removed items that didn't belong to them. Was it 99% our fault? Probably.
Was it 100% our fault? No - someone clearly knew what they were doing was wrong when they went into the car and removed items that didn't belong to them. Was it 99% our fault? Probably.
It was zero percent your fault and 100% the criminal's fault that someone trespassed on your property and stole things of yours.
The costs of the goods you lost. The time and inconvenience of having to carry keys. The extra $ that your car cost because the manufacturer had to install locks. The $ in taxes you pay for police -- All of these costs are 100% the fault of criminals and 0% the fault of you.
How is it not your "fault" if this guy said he wouldn't have taken the property if the doors were locked?
There is a 100% chance that the car wouldn't have been stolen if thieves didn't exist, but "fault" and the fact something was taken are different issues.
Preventing people from stealing my stuff shouldn't be my job. That's their parents' job, and when their parents fail it's the job of the police and the courts.
There is even criminal theory regarding people committing crimes because of opportunity. If you give them opportunity, fault lies with you as well.
I understand that theory. The world is full of opportunity, and, for those who cannot resist it, letting them walk freely among the rest of us constitutes "giving them opportunity." It's not my decision to let the criminal walk down my block, and so it's not me that gave him the opportunity to steal my stuff.
You put the stuff there and didn't secure it.
If this person locked her car and took her keys, there would have been a 100% chance that the car would still be there. She left the car on and it is her fault that her dog and car was taken.
That doesn't make her a bad person or a criminal or stupid or any other number of things, but it does mean because of her actions, her property was taken. I think people get caught up on this aspect too much, that blame is some sort of bad thing or makes you bad person.
I would blame myself if I left a lot of cash on my dinning room table and someone broke into my house and took that money. That money wouldn't have been taken if I had just put it somewhere safer.
What I'm doing here is challenging the assumption that "the way things are" is something we ought to accept.
What if someone came onto your property, jimmied the lock on your car, hot-wired the ignition ( or whatever the modern digital equivalent is), and drove off. And what if I said, "If you had just hired an armed guard, then there would be a 100% chance that your car would still be there. But you didn't, and it's your fault that the car is gone."
I would hope you would say, "That's nuts, nobody should have to hire an armed guard to protect his own locked car in his own driveway."
The only difference between "people shouldn't be expected to hire armed guards to watch their property," and "people shouldn't be expected to buy and install locks and lock up their property every time they turn their back." is one of degree. It's a matter of what we become accustomed to.
but accepting "the way things are" and saying something is 0% someones fault are two different issues. I was challenging the 0% part, not the acceptance part.
In terms of our degree of reasonableness, I agree. Locking a car and taking the keys is reasonable. There would be fault if this is not done and something happens.
In your professional experience, what do you generally see as the sentencing outcome when someone is arrested for stealing a car, with solid evidence, a strong case against them, etc? Has this changed over time?
Someone like this has probably been charged with 100-150 crimes in his lifetime. He is going to have a defense lawyer argue that his mental illness and lack of medication is one of the reasons why he has chosen this lifestyle.
The crime here isn't going to matter either since he already has warrants for other crimes and most likely multiple open cases and other probation issues.
I say he might get 3-6 months in prison for this and get release again on the other stuff?
The thief's parents might be saints but some twist of fate, shitty friends, brain tumor, etc. might be the cause of his proclivity to steal.
And it's not the job of police or courts to prevent bad things from happening. It's their job to clean up the mess after it does. If you want police to prevent things from happening, then we'll live in a police state where everyone is assumed guilty until they can prove no ill intent.
Acting like you shouldn't be concerned about preventing other people from doing bad things to you denies what you should know about human nature. There are bad humans. There will always be bad humans. When those bad humans harm you, you can rely on the legal system to deal with the fallout. But if you want to always be dealing with the fallout, then feel free to act as if you shouldn't take any preventive actions. But if you want to leave your car with the keys in it and running every time you hop out (stupid in and of its own right because a simple malfunction could put the car in gear and destroy your car), then you're going to have to deal with the fallout every time it's stolen. Your actions have risks associated with them and you know that bad people exist so you you know how to mitigate your risks and yet you choose not to. Also, don't be surprised when your insurance drops you because you're bad at taking simple actions to mitigate huge costs from what would otherwise be extremely low risks.
And finally, if you want to talk about preventing people from harming others...who the fuck are you to leave your gas-burning car idling, spewing emissions into the air, just because you couldn't be bothered to turn it off and take the keys with you when you got out? Hypocrite.
I don't believe I said anything about leaving it running, did I?
Look at a hierarchy of things one might do when leaving one's car:
1) Turn it off, leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
2) Turn it off, leave it unlocked, tuck the keys above the visor.
3) Turn it off, lock it, take the keys.
4) Turn it off, install an aftermarket steering wheel / brake pedal lock, lock both, take the keys.
5) As #4, install a "boot" type immobilizer on a wheel, lock all three locks, take the keys.
6) As #5, plus pay a kid to watch the car while you are gone.
7) As #5, plus pay an armed guard to watch the car while you are gone.
I'm going to guess that you think #1 and #2 are insufficient protection, #4 is a little excessive, and #5 and above are crazy.
Why? For what principled reason? Just because it is the most widely practiced norm? #1 used to be the norm. The percentage of humans who are criminals has not changed since then.
A-dog-able. Heee heee.
David Brady under arrest.
I'm a resident that live in Dorchester, unfortunate recently and our sister communities they've been violence on an unbelievable scopes.
When is story came on the news and I was still kind of emotional regarding violence in our neighborhoods I begin to weep a little more because of the taken of an love one, please don't misunderstanding me, sometime the totality of loss can bring one to an emotional point.
I am happy and relieved for the lady for being able to have her loved one return back to her, it is a great day for all that are involved including me.
However I asked everyone to keep your love and your thoughts to the individual families and friends who are lost love ones especially the ones recently in Heath Street neighborhoods.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy