Someone tried to steal my car now I'm worried

RacyRed

yvonne13 wrote: »

3v3,

I am going to spell this out to you as you are clearly painting a picture in your mind that doesn't exist.

I live 5 blocks down a street, my neighbour a woman stayed on the phone to the police watching and telling them what was going on whist the s**t was robbing my car, it was her husband that rang me on my mobile whilst I was in bed. My back door is at the back of the house hence it being called a back door. At the back door you cannot see the front and you have to walk down or in my case run down the whole 5 blocks to get out as it is gated.

I live in a neighbour watch area and most of us have cameras fitted front and back. So your saying my camera lied, my neighbours lied, even the Dr's that lives at the end house his camera was lying.

The reason I thought it was a young lad was due to the clothes he was wearing, as I said it was when I saw his face I realised he was middle aged either that or he ages quickly.

Anyway my neighbours and I have given our recordings over to the policeman that lives opposite and he are going to keep an eye out for this man as he is known to the police.

:eek: :eek:

Given that, I quite simply do not understand why he wasn't arrested at the time. Whatever the OP did is a seperate matter. There were eye witnesses and CTV footage of the crime (theft) taking place :mad:

3v3

RacyRed wrote: »

Really?
The OP says he wasn't.
....
3v3, there are as many "ifs" on the side of the OP as there are on the potential thief. I worry that your approach could mean that thieves start stealing unlocked cars with pensioners still in the back seat.... Oh wait... they did that last week didn't they.

My "approach" (as you call it) means that there are many on here who are jumping to the "defence" of someone who openly admits they assaulted someone, repeatedly, and can't see why that is wrong; in fact, many have gone further in what they say they would have done.

Yet, none of them can see they are hypocrites: if it is wrong to steal (against the law) , it is wrong to assault someone (against the law). The OP wasn't "defending" anything - she wasn't under threat - in fact, there was no ill effects to the car at all (or maybe that further piece of information is yet to be posted? ).

I do understand why people are very quick to defend the OP's actions; I simply do not agree with what the OP did; it was as unlawful as the actions of the (alleged) thief.

3v3

RacyRed wrote: »

:eek: :eek:

Given that, I quite simply do not understand why he wasn't arrested at the time. ... There were eye witnesses and CTV footage of the crime (theft) taking place ...

Does make you think, doesn't it

RacyRed

3v3 wrote: »

Does make you think, doesn't it

Yes, it really does.

If there were 2 seperate crimes taking place they should have been dealt with as 2 seperate crimes. The police are not judge and jury.

kafkathecat

If the police had arrested the suspect he would have immediately pressed charges for an assault witnessed by two police officers. Would th OP really want to go through all that? The law has to protect suspects because not all suspects are guilty, unfortunately for the victim that means the law has to protect the guilty as well. It isn't about being oon the side of the criminal it is about living in a civilised society.

gemmalouanna

3v3 wrote: »

My "approach" (as you call it) means that there are many on here who are jumping to the "defence" of someone who openly admits they assaulted someone, repeatedly, and can't see why that is wrong; in fact, many have gone further in what they say they would have done.

Yet, none of them can see they are hypocrites: if it is wrong to steal (against the law) , it is wrong to assault someone (against the law). The OP wasn't "defending" anything - she wasn't under threat - in fact, there was no ill effects to the car at all (or maybe that further piece of information is yet to be posted? ).

I do understand why people are very quick to defend the OP's actions; I simply do not agree with what the OP did; it was as unlawful as the actions of the (alleged) thief.

I think people change their view of when it is ok to hit someone so we can't just generalise and say her 'assaulting' is wrong.
I think a lot of people don't see the 'assault' as wrong. Someone who assaults someone in the street for no reason is wrong but she was doing it to get him off her car - and saying that there were no ill effects to the car - yes because she stopped him taking it and causing any.
I think a thief has to accept that they may get 'assaulted' if they choose to take someone else's property.

To say her actions are as unlawful as the thiefs!!! Cannot believe anyone would see it that way....seriously.

3v3

RacyRed wrote: »

Yes, it really does.

If there were 2 seperate crimes taking place they should have been dealt with as 2 seperate crimes. The police are not judge and jury.

Then I am sure the CCTV footage will give them both sides of the story and food for thought

Likewise, the OP should not have acted as judge and jury.

yvonne13_2

They called by his first name and when all the other neighbours came out saying what they had witnessed by the time I looked he must have ran off and the police said they were going to go and pick him up

3v3

gemmalouanna wrote: »

....
To say her actions are as unlawful as the thiefs!!! Cannot believe anyone would see it that way....seriously.

That's the point though, gemmalouanna, it is not necessarily me that sees it that way, the law does ... her actions were unprovoked and she attacked someone from behind.

Her original question was: can he change his mind and press charges at a later date? My answer was: she committed an assault and yes, he could. I also stated that if that *did* happen, of course his actions would be taken into account, as would hers. That is the law. That is the basis of my replies.

Tropez

gemmalouanna wrote: »

To say her actions are as unlawful as the thiefs!!! Cannot believe anyone would see it that way....seriously.

A lot of people would though, to be honest.

If I assaulted someone who was trying to steal from me and I was charged with it I would lose my job. Any sort of police action while working in private security just isn't good, except for the cowboy firms out there.

Heck, if I assaulted someone, wasn't charged but my employer found out about it, no matter what the reason for my actions, I could expect to be dismissed.