Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > So how hard is it to steal a Wrangler?

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: So how hard is it to steal a Wrangler? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
11-08-2012 08:47 PM
BlueRidgeYJ I was always under the impression generic was, well, genericly applied. I'm not the lawyer though

Makes sense in reference to evidence for prosecution, didn't think of it that way.

Thanks for the clarity.
11-08-2012 07:50 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
It is all about that one guy, Mr Reasonable. You have to respond how he would, but Mr Reasonable doesn't have combat or defense training, so you have to properly adjust accordingly. That, in simple terms, is why you can't hit someone in a fight with a baseball bat. Or stab that guy stealing your change in the parking deck. It is a force multiplier, and that's cheating.
The reasonable man. He's a heck of a guy.

To be honest, I don't recall whether the majority view applies the generic reasonable man, or whether it uses a reasonable man with your particular skill set. I do know that the reasonable man appears in both formats throughout the law in various spots.

My GUT is that the law would generally ask whether YOU responded reasonably and commensurately to the attack presented, and not necessarily critique your particular moves. Was it reasonable to sweep the guy? If yes, it's okay, you were defending yourself. If no, then you own the consequences.

Been awhile though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
I didn't think 5th was as applicable to civil as it is to criminal, tort vs crime and all?
My recollection is that this is correct. However, you should still be able to refuse to answer on the grounds that you'll provide ammo for a criminal prosecution. Of course, depending on the circumstances, you may end up defaulting in the lawsuit as a result.
11-08-2012 06:50 PM
BlueRidgeYJ Interesting conversation.

It is all about that one guy, Mr Reasonable. You have to respond how he would, but Mr Reasonable doesn't have combat or defense training, so you have to properly adjust accordingly. That, in simple terms, is why you can't hit someone in a fight with a baseball bat. Or stab that guy stealing your change in the parking deck. It is a force multiplier, and that's cheating.

I didn't think 5th was as applicable to civil as it is to criminal, tort vs crime and all?

And then there is their right to a trial - so your actions can only stop and deter aggression, not punish. Like beating those neighborhood kids that rolled ya last week.

My shillings.
11-08-2012 01:35 PM
lordmike There is an interesting thing that happens when you've trained a long time. You become acclimated to those you train with, people who are at a similar skill level and are much better equipped to handle the things that you throw at them. I used to be a bouncer and luckily never got into that many altercations... which is a very lucky thing because I would immediately respond to the level of one of my training partners, a level that a regular Joe is usually unprepared for. There were a couple of instances where I took it too far, but it really had more to do with me misjudging my opponent than being an overzealous brute.
11-08-2012 12:46 PM
fan of fanboys
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

I would definitely say "no" to this one.

It has a certain appeal, but the reality is that it's much tougher to justify the use of intentionally lethal force, and if you fail to justify it you've just committed murder--which means you're going away for a very long time.

The opposite position is actually much safer. Use whatever training you have in whatever manner is most effective for you to safeguard yourself, others, and your property, but if the situation allows you to exercise some control, then try to do as little damage as possible.
Depends on state and of course situation.
The woman in Florida was was victim of domestic violence shot a gun in air to scare him. Can get 20 years. Had she killed him max woulda been 15 years. And there is a chance she coulda had cause and got off free if good enough lawyer.

I totally get what you're saying. I wouldn't attempt to kill bc an issue after say dinner out. But if I'm being robbed and offering my material possessions isn't enough, the criminal is attempting physical violence I would hope I wouldn't hesitate ensure I walked away and he didn't.

I wrestled in college but no combat experience. I have a 9mm I carry when I can but don't have on my person just walking down the street though.
11-08-2012 12:31 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan of fanboys View Post
This thread has gotten pretty off topic but to add, in a much shorter manner ha, to the poster prior (with whom I agree 100% with) I hope to never be in such a situation but it seems like killing the person would be better than hurting. If the situation is as such you're using heavy force you risk being sued and liable. If you kill and it's within a reasonable situation then at least minimize being liable for injuries when only protecting yourself. Unless you're white and it's a minority.
I would definitely say "no" to this one.

It has a certain appeal, but the reality is that it's much tougher to justify the use of intentionally lethal force, and if you fail to justify it you've just committed murder--which means you're going away for a very long time.

The opposite position is actually much safer. Use whatever training you have in whatever manner is most effective for you to safeguard yourself, others, and your property, but if the situation allows you to exercise some control, then try to do as little damage as possible.
11-08-2012 12:25 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmike View Post
You know, this is pretty interesting, I've never had the pleasure of speaking about this topic with an attorney before. I've always found the laws surrounding this topic to be a little screwy. For instance, the law seems to believe that if you have training you also have complete control of the situation and judges you very harshly if something doesn't go as planned (i.e. they slip and fall). Our instructor has always said that training puts you at an effective disadvantage in court because regardless of how it goes down, your assailant can claim that you used excessive force. But my opinion on dangerous situations has always been that there are too many variables to take them lightly. The whole "tit for tat" idea of self defense that many states have is utter nonsense and nothing in the world works that way. I feel there are too many unknowns about attackers and if you want to walk away alive you need to bring everything you have to the table at once. I don't know what diseases, weapons, training, or intent they have so whenever I've been attacked my goal is to do as much damage as quickly as possible so they don't get the opportunity to do the same to me. I've found that rapid escalation is effective because it doesn't provide your attacker the ability to get one up on you and to be honest, most people just bail when you skip right to the violence step.
And I'm not sure I've ever heard anybody say it was a "pleasure" to speak with an attorney!

Both views are correct IMO. Training provides an advantage in the real world where it can give you an upperhand over an assailant, but a disadvantage in the courtroom where lawyers, judges, and juries who may have never trained or been in a fight assume your training provided you with complete control over the outcome.

Personally, I think on balance it's worth it to have the training. Just be aware if you ever need to use it that you must respond REASONABLY. That means with the proper amout of force to STOP the attack or PREVENT the theft. You don't get to respond in a LETHAL or near lethal way to some kid who tries to pick your pocket or some guy you walk upon trying to fish through your jeep's glove box.

(Caveat - Many states have the "Castle doctrine," which does allow much more flexibility if someone attacks you in your home, car, or sometimes office. That's different. I'm assuming here we're talking about "street" situations, in a parking garage, a bar, etc.)

In the unlikely event you must defend yourself or your property, respond reasonably, and yet severely injure the attacker, you may unfortunately also need to defend yourself legally afterwards. In doing so, the best approach will generally be to retain a lawyer and thereafter proceed with honesty--present evidence that you were responding reasonably, and it was happenstance that the attacker was injured much more severely than you had intended.
11-08-2012 12:10 PM
fan of fanboys This thread has gotten pretty off topic but to add, in a much shorter manner ha, to the poster prior (with whom I agree 100% with) I hope to never be in such a situation but it seems like killing the person would be better than hurting. If the situation is as such you're using heavy force you risk being sued and liable. If you kill and it's within a reasonable situation then at least minimize being liable for injuries when only protecting yourself. Unless you're white and it's a minority.
11-08-2012 11:53 AM
lordmike You know, this is pretty interesting, I've never had the pleasure of speaking about this topic with an attorney before. I've always found the laws surrounding this topic to be a little screwy. For instance, the law seems to believe that if you have training you also have complete control of the situation and judges you very harshly if something doesn't go as planned (i.e. they slip and fall). Our instructor has always said that training puts you at an effective disadvantage in court because regardless of how it goes down, your assailant can claim that you used excessive force. But my opinion on dangerous situations has always been that there are too many variables to take them lightly. The whole "tit for tat" idea of self defense that many states have is utter nonsense and nothing in the world works that way. I feel there are too many unknowns about attackers and if you want to walk away alive you need to bring everything you have to the table at once. I don't know what diseases, weapons, training, or intent they have so whenever I've been attacked my goal is to do as much damage as quickly as possible so they don't get the opportunity to do the same to me. I've found that rapid escalation is effective because it doesn't provide your attacker the ability to get one up on you and to be honest, most people just bail when you skip right to the violence step.
11-08-2012 11:41 AM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmike View Post
Couldn't you just plead the fifth if asked about training?
Practically, no.

In a criminal trial, you could of course decline to take the stand. This would probably be a pretty bad idea though. Police interviews of witnesses and your friends and family would pretty quickly establish that you've been training for many years. So that wouldn't really be in dispute. All you'd be doing by not testifying would be denying yourself the opportunity to explain your actions to the jury and show that you're really a good guy.

Criminal defendants often don't testify because they have nothing good to say (e.g., "Yeah, I shot him."), and often have a history of dishonesty (e.g., "Yeah, I told the cops I wasn't there, but I was."). You'd be different . . . unless of course you had lied during the investigation and told the cops you hadn't had any training, which would of course be false. Then you look like a liar who knows he's responsible but lied to try to cover it up, and so you might not take the stand. But again, your friends, family, training partners, etc., would all provide evidence of your training, so that'd be in evidence no matter what.

In a civil trial, you could be compelled to take the stand. You could then decline to answer about your training and assert the Fifth Amendment, but, again, the evidence would already be in from other sources. On top of that, I'm not sure the Fifth Amendment would really even apply. I haven't looked at the issue since law school, but my gut tells me that you have a right not to testify against yourself in a way that effectively admits crimes. Testifying that you've been training for ten years really doesn't do that. It's more just historical fact than it is a criminal admission.

Bottomline: It is very, very difficult and very, very unusual for you to be able to effectively and legally "cover up" or "hide" facts in a courtroom. With limited exception, the law in general has a way to get to the truth.

The likely reality is that if the attacker was accidentally severely injured (e.g., the simple sweep that goes horribly wrong), your best path is to simply argue that and present that evidence. E.g., yes I am good at that sweep, yes I've done it hundreds of times, no one has ever been injured any other time I've done it, training partners testify as to your control and good disposition in training, etc. That is unlikely to result in your being liable or criminally responsible--you responded reasonably to the assailant, which is all the law usually requires of someone being attacked. On the other hand, if you just gave the guy a vicious beating that was completely unnecessary . . . well, then you'll have to pay the piper.
11-08-2012 11:31 AM
lordmike Couldn't you just plead the fifth if asked about training?
11-08-2012 10:10 AM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmike View Post
These laws are pretty nutty. I've been doing Russian Sambo for over a decade and our instructor has always instructed us to keep out mouths shut about knowing a combat style. While that "my hands are registered as deadly weapons" thing is total BS, if it came out in court that I have a long training history, it could be used against me regardless if I was defending myself or not. Ken Shamrock (do you guys remember him?) got into some hot water years ago. I guess he was working as a bouncer and some guy got rough. Ken schooled him and later he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I think the logic is that Ken was so far ahead of this guy in skill that it would have been no different than if had attacked with a knife or gun. Total bullshit imho, my feeling is that if you decided to approach a person or their property in a negative way, you've just signed off on any rights you have concerning what is about to happen to you. I've always felt that if somebody lays hands on me, they've just signed a contract that they fully accept whatever it is I may have for them.
If you get taken to court for beating up somebody, your training will come out as evidence. You're not going to be able to "keep it quiet" unless you're willing to perjure yourself, which would almost certainly be discovered and make matters much worse.

However, as far as I'm aware, every state allows you to use a commeasurate amount of force to repel an attack or defend your property. So you're not precluded from using your training in appropriate scenarios.

Where you run into problems is when you either cause an injury much more severe than expected (such as if a simple sweep caused a fractured skull, etc.), or you put a hellaciously unneeded beating on somebody long after you've gotten the situation under control (such as if you follow your simple sweep all the way to a mount, smash the guy's face in with 25 elbows, and then keylock both his shoulders out of joint).

In either of those situations, the injury caused is well beyond what was needed to protect yourself or your property, and you could fairly expect to be sued, criminally charged, or both. At that point, your training will make it much easier for the injured person or the prosecutor to argue that you knew exactly what you were doing, and caused all their harm intentionally (rather than accidentally), which exposes you to greater liability and/or sentencing.

The practical point remains though that if you were untrained, you may have been overcome by the attacker altogether. So it's still better to be trained than not, even if you do have to exercise some care when using your training and, ultimately, must place a good bit of faith in chance and luck (such as hoping to avoid the fractured skull scenario noted above, where your training helps the other side argue that an accidentally severe injury was done purposefully).
11-08-2012 09:04 AM
lordmike These laws are pretty nutty. I've been doing Russian Sambo for over a decade and our instructor has always instructed us to keep out mouths shut about knowing a combat style. While that "my hands are registered as deadly weapons" thing is total BS, if it came out in court that I have a long training history, it could be used against me regardless if I was defending myself or not. Ken Shamrock (do you guys remember him?) got into some hot water years ago. I guess he was working as a bouncer and some guy got rough. Ken schooled him and later he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I think the logic is that Ken was so far ahead of this guy in skill that it would have been no different than if had attacked with a knife or gun. Total bullshit imho, my feeling is that if you decided to approach a person or their property in a negative way, you've just signed off on any rights you have concerning what is about to happen to you. I've always felt that if somebody lays hands on me, they've just signed a contract that they fully accept whatever it is I may have for them.
11-07-2012 09:56 AM
Lusus_Naturae Going back to Turbo-Kill. I haven't had my hands on the product but it looks very similar, although has way more options, than the REED system a lot of people put in their TJ's. I wouldn't say the cost is low for the product, I've seen a lot cheaper REED systems, so that doesn't bother me at all. The more common REED system uses just the magnetic option, not the remote or RFID chip part.

Personally, I like a cheap alarm system combined with a REED, and a proximity alarm. I know alarm sirens are often ignored, but if it's in your driveway I would hope you woudl hear it and check it out. The newer alarms (higher cost) will message you too if you like that stuff. I just hook up a siren that isn't common so when I hear it go off I know it's mine.
11-06-2012 10:55 PM
Carlsbad0331
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
Back in law school, I argued mightily for applying the tort defense of "assumption of risk" to thieves on private property.

In other words, if you're breaking into my house or my stuff in my yard, you've "assumed the risk" that I might do all sorts of terrible things to you upon discovery, and so I bear no responsibility for whatever may transpire. My view was that the law should view that as the chance thieves take when they trespass onto someone's property and attempt to steal or destroy things.

Alas, the law in nearly every state disagrees with me--and you.
You should run for public office. And let me know where you do it so I can move there and vote for you! I have been making that argument for years (not as an attorney) and no one seems to agree with me either.
Everything we do has consequences. I think it is safe to assume that we have considered those consequences prior to making the decision to act.
I know that if I speed, and get caught I will have to pay a fine. I know that if I rob a bank and get caught I will go to prison. I know that if I beat my kids, I deserve to be maimed and mutilated... Why cant we assume that criminals are capable of using the same reasoning?
11-06-2012 04:57 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
Agree to disagree. lol. Thieves are scum that don't deserve to live. Man if only I was King.
Back in law school, I argued mightily for applying the tort defense of "assumption of risk" to thieves on private property.

In other words, if you're breaking into my house or my stuff in my yard, you've "assumed the risk" that I might do all sorts of terrible things to you upon discovery, and so I bear no responsibility for whatever may transpire. My view was that the law should view that as the chance thieves take when they trespass onto someone's property and attempt to steal or destroy things.

Alas, the law in nearly every state disagrees with me--and you.
11-06-2012 01:28 PM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001
Agree to disagree. lol. Thieves are scum that don't deserve to live. Man if only I was King.
Our elected officials feel the same.

If it werent for that pesky Constitution... lmao
11-06-2012 10:15 AM
Raiderfan001
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
While it may sound counterintuitive, this is good public policy--after all, it's only a jeep. Nobody, even if they're guilty, should be summarily executed without trial by a member of the general public via electric shock, acid attack, bleeding to death by bear trap, etc. just because they tried to steal a jeep.
Agree to disagree. lol. Thieves are scum that don't deserve to live. Man if only I was King.
11-06-2012 10:06 AM
lordmike I didn't realize I'd started such compelling conversation.
10-30-2012 05:11 AM
Farnham21 Haven't you people ever seen liar liar!!!! Woman left knife on kitchen counter burglar falls through kitchen ceiling lands on knife and sues woman and wins. This is how you get shit done
10-30-2012 01:53 AM
2five22 For aspiring and unlicensed lawyers, here is case law:

Katko v Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (IA 1971) and Briney v Katko, 197 N.W. 351 (IA 1972). Nationally known case involving a 'spring' gun set up to kill or maim a residential burglar.

The burglary victim was sued for wrongful injury. He lost and the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the decision for the burglar. He was awarded $30,000. He spent only months in jail and had paid a small fine for the burglary.
10-30-2012 01:38 AM
2five22 If you are really concerned about vehicle theft, get LoJack and let the police catch them.

Booby trapping any vehicle anywhere in the U.S. is criminally illegal and will get your keister sued off in civil court.

A Club is worthless. As others have said, the steering wheel can be cut or even bent off with sheer muscle power [seen it done].

Thankfully, Jeep Wranglers are not popular stolen vehicles in my area. Grand Cherokees on the other hand...
10-29-2012 05:49 PM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkaufman_95

I'm sure you were kidding....
Of course I would never advocate fraud. Its hard for me to understand how it is, but it is.
10-29-2012 11:42 AM
jkaufman_95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ

When I was a Snap on man our door had to be locked, alarm on for the policy to be enacted when parked overnight. Not sure about a typical policy, but Im not sure I would risk the top anyhow. If they get something and the doors were open, cut a slit in the top where you want then call (Thats illegal, you shouldnt do it.)
I'm sure you were kidding....
10-29-2012 09:50 AM
fan of fanboys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma8
I wonder if car thieves today pass on manual transmission vehicles?
There was something about that awhile back and answer was no. While many people today don't learn a manual, most car thieves know how.
10-29-2012 07:05 AM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2JeepsThatRun
Since this is about theft does any one know if leaving the doors unlocked is a way for insurance to get out of paying money. Since I guess they could say it was due to negligence to lock the vehicle. Just a thought since I'm guessing most of us with soft tops would rather them just open the door than open your top.
When I was a Snap on man our door had to be locked, alarm on for the policy to be enacted when parked overnight. Not sure about a typical policy, but Im not sure I would risk the top anyhow. If they get something and the doors were open, cut a slit in the top where you want then call (Thats illegal, you shouldnt do it.)
10-29-2012 07:01 AM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by aelwero

bah. I meant to quote YOUR comment-

which I would say advocates forfeiture of liberty (your right to be in your house and own your belongings) for the sake of safety (from frivolous lawsuits that you admittedly could easily lose).
I'm saying that choosing to stand aside and allow a crime to pass based on lack of civil tort protection is unacceptable. Provided taking action won't cause "new" risk to any noncombatants, I will detain/apprehend a criminal without any regard for civil liability. I understand the risk, and I'll take my chances.

Everything you've said makes so much more sense now. My apologies.
Ah, I see. That was a point of clarity. I certainly agree with Castle Doctrines in the fashion Georgia has (all force is authorized if someone enters your property with intent to commit, or by commission of, a felony, or if life is at risk, - individuals are protected from criminal prosecution and civil liability). I do not believe the FL "stand your ground" laws are productive. Too hard to know what happened, who the aggressor was, etc.

I will protect what is mine, and I will know any criminal responsibilities or potential punitive damages I am on the hook for - it may determine what course of action or tools I use.

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God", another Dr Franklin quote.
10-29-2012 12:03 AM
2JeepsThatRun Since this is about theft does any one know if leaving the doors unlocked is a way for insurance to get out of paying money. Since I guess they could say it was due to negligence to lock the vehicle. Just a thought since I'm guessing most of us with soft tops would rather them just open the door than open your top.
10-28-2012 11:52 PM
jkaufman_95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckey73

That's a really good idea, or they sell battery disconnects which contain two screws that are easily removed. I once had a "friend" remove my club in less than 5 seconds with no tools. You could also take a couple of fuses inside with you every night.
It's effective. I have seen them hidden but I have mine hidden in plain sight on a panel with 8 other switches, but you could also wire it in a series where it is say switch one up, switch two down, switch three down, switch four up,
Kind of like a password.
10-28-2012 11:49 PM
mckey73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkaufman_95 View Post
I installed a starter interlock switch.

If the switch is closed The dash will light up and all but turn the keys and nothing happens.
That's a really good idea, or they sell battery disconnects which contain two screws that are easily removed. I once had a "friend" remove my club in less than 5 seconds with no tools. You could also take a couple of fuses inside with you every night.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC