<VV> Stolen Corvair recovered

[Bill Elliott]

>At 10:29 hours 05/22/2005, Thomas Stingl wrote:
>> > they told me to stop the guy from following the car because he wasn't
>> > authorized to do that.
>>
>>There is a country in the world where you have to be authorized to follow
>>a car, in particular a supposed to be stolen one from a friend?
>>

Snip

>...IF that rock was close by and IF my aim with the rock had been good and 
>he'd experienced a momentary lapse in interest to keep pressure on the gas 
>pedal and I was in fact able to get to the deck lid etc.   I wouldn't let 
>him get off scott-free...  my personal sense of outrage wouldn't allow me 
>to let him do so.    My arrogance and stubborn attitude wouldn't let me 
>just stand there and let him get away with it.

>I'd *have* to do something.     I guess it's just me...  the idea of 
>someone trying to steal my property and having some law enforcement sort 
>blunder in such a manner as to tell me to let them do it and get away with 
>it so as to "protect me" flies in the face of rationality.    That 4th 
>Amendment comes to mind.     Sometimes it falls upon the individual to 
>enforce the Law of the Land himself.


This whole subject is quickly becoming a discussion for VV-Talk, but I'll add in a couple of points here...

First, I can't believe that somebody in the same region would try to steal something as unique as a 
Corvair and pass it off as his own. I did grow up in NC, but even the ne'r-do-well rednecks I was raised 
with had better sense than that. This sort of stupidity gives rednecks a bad name.

I'm very happy that the car was returned with as little damage as was found. Most times IF cars are 
found, they are completely stripped. Discussion this weekend at Import Carilsle was that a Lo-Jack (or 
similar) was a real good idea for a classic car.

This should also serve as a reminder (as per the earlier posts) on just how easy a Corvair (or any old car) 
is to steal. Stealing a modern car is best done with a set of earplug and a tow truck. A pre-68 car with a 
dash mounted switch and no locking column can be hotwired within a matter of seconds by a semi-
skilled thief with no tools... or even jumped from the engine compartment within seconds... once you've 
had a British car with a dead battery AND a wonky ignition switch, these sorts of skills become second 
nature...

On the "following" part, while I don't think there is any law that forbids one car from following another, 
the police always assume that it's going to be a "chase" situation where a driver of unknown skill in a car 
of unknown quality is pursuing a suspected thief. It's easy to see the high number of potential BAD 
outcomes versus the low possibility of a good outcome.  The cops said he was "unauthroized" to 
pursue, not that it was illegal... I think that would be very good advice for the situation (though, of course, 
I'd do exactly as Tony).

Finally (and this is where we really vere into VV-talk subjects) , though our Founding Fathers saw 
property as an inalienable right (in the Declaration of Independance, so considered even more basic 
right than those spelled out in the Constitution), the New Deal dramatically altered the legal way that our 
system looks at property to the point now that it is a larger crime to injure someone trying to unlawfully 
take your property than the taking of the property yourself. 

Current case law gives you the right of self-defense ONLY when your life (or someone else's life) is 
threatened, NOT when you are "merely" protecting property.  (For the logical evolution of this line of 
thought, check out the UK citizen who shot armed thiefs IN HIS HOME and went to jail for a far longer 
period than the criminals for using "unauthorized force".) I understand that even the police are not 
authorized to use deadly force if ONLY property is endangered.  So Tony, think twice about slapping 
that perp with a rock unless he's in your house...

Bill Elliott