Someone tried to steal my car now I'm worried

mishkanorman

make_me_wise wrote: »

3v3 got it wrong though didn't she. Once the police had looked at the cctv and had all the facts about what had happened they agreed the OP had acted appropriately under the circumstances. The man the OP stopped from stealing her car is now being dealt with by the police. It is the OP that has suffered unecessary derision on this thread in my honest opinion.

But not for the 'crime' as reported in the OP though was it ?

And 3v3 really didnt get it wrong, they didnt say the person wheeling the car away was right in doing so, they were stating that the OP still may be un-lucky enough to be open for criminal action against them.

With regards to the physical threat, the police stated they believe he MAY have used the hammer on the OP, but she still wasnt under physical attack at any point so cannot claim self defence. Yet the other party involved would have been able to as she struck first.

Its all a little bit too narrow minded for my liking, like the London riots. People felt they had the right to destroy peoples property and lives in the name of the perceived wrong doing of others

Lotus-eater

make_me_wise wrote: »

I rest my case. It is derision of the OPs actions like this and much more that has left myself and a great number of other posters with no respect for 3v3. Someone who you yourself have advised is on your ignore list lotus. We will have to agree to disagree on this one

She wasn't under any physical threat; she subjected him to an unproked physical attack.

Which was absolutely correct! That is the way the law works, you are allowed to protect yourself and family with reasonable force, protect yourself, not attack a fleeing car thief, no matter what he might have been carrying off.
Now, if the daft guy had wanted to press charges, no doubt the OP would have been arrested, she probably would have been let out soon and nothing would have come of it, but that is the law.

yvonne13_2

mishkanorman wrote: »

But not for the 'crime' as reported in the OP though was it ?

And 3v3 really didnt get it wrong, they didnt say the person wheeling the car away was right in doing so, they were stating that the OP still may be un-lucky enough to be open for criminal action against them.

With regards to the physical threat, the police stated they believe he MAY have used the hammer on the OP, but she still wasnt under physical attack at any point so cannot claim self defence. Yet the other party involved would have been able to as she struck first.

Its all a little bit too narrow minded for my liking, like the London riots. People felt they had the right to destroy peoples property and lives in the name of the perceived wrong doing of others

Where are you getting your information from? I never told you word for word what the police said so watch what you are saying

mishkanorman

yvonne13 wrote: »

Where are you getting your information from? I never told you word for word what the police said so watch what you are saying

Er, you ?

"They already had him in custody on other charges I don't know what they are"

yvonne13_2

mishkanorman wrote: »

Er, you ?

"They already had him in custody on other charges I don't know what they are"

And you clearly cannot read

mishkanorman

yvonne13 wrote: »

And you clearly cannot read

Thats the 2nd little dig you've made, quite a hostile person arent you ?

So has the person actually been arrested by the police in relation to the incident with yourself ? You dont actually state anywhere he has, just that the police had him in custody for 'other' charges.

make_me_wise

A couple of genuine questions Lotus; If someone were stealing your car how would you make sure you stopped them, staying within the law? Would you truly not overstep any line and let some low life just knick off with something that enabled you to earn a living, and which you simply could not afford to replace?

yvonne13_2

mishkanorman wrote: »

Thats the 2nd little dig you've made, quite a hostile person arent you ?

So has the person actually been arrested by the police in relation to the incident with yourself ? You dont actually state anywhere he has, just that the police had him in custody for 'other' charges.

Why are you asking me a question now? YOU have already told me what was said at the station even though I don't remember you being there.

All you need to now is the question I asked originally has already been answered.

prowla

Anyway, I say well done to the OP, and I sincerely hope that nothing bad comes your was as a result of it!

yvonne13_2

prowla wrote: »

Anyway, I say well done to the OP, and I sincerely hope that nothing bad comes your was as a result of it!

No hun, nothing is going to happen to me and that has been confirmed by the police