Motorcycle Theft - Karma at it's best

[TheTick]

Gotta love aussie justice.

[Highway41]

That had to feel really good; pulling out the stake and busting him in the nose.

Bill

[Kathy R]

Uh, jeepers.

[alimar]

Couldn't help but to get a chuckle out of this one!!!

[russell_bynum]

Classic.

[Kitsap]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

[russell_bynum]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

 

Unlawful disposal of biohazardous waste.

[tazplas]

He got what he deserved. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those bastards. I have been broken into 3 times throughout my life so far and every time i wish i could have had the opportunity this lucky guy had to retrieve his property.

 

Hope he twisted the stake on the way out as well.

 

Down here in Tassie we would have fed him to the Devils. Up on the Mainland they should have fed him to the Dingo's i reckon.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[LeftCoastMan]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

 

In the US, it could be depraved indifference which can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Removal of the stake may have actually endangered the thief/victim even further, which could have led to some sort of negligent homicide charge. You actually don't have the right to kill someone taking your property, except in some very strict circumstances.

 

The owner of the bike had his justice with the thief impaled on the stake. His duty was then to call in an emergency, and tend to the victim.

 

The thief is an idiot and deserves to spend time in prison. But it's not a capital offense, and he doesn't deserve to be treated in the manner that the owner employed. I find it offensive and immoral.

[LeftCoastMan]

He got what deserved. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those bastards. I have been broken into 3 times throughout my life so far and every time i wish i could have had the opportunity this lucky guy had to retrieve his property.

 

Hope he twisted the stake on the way out as well.

 

Down here in Tassie we would have fed him to the Devils. Up on the Mainland they should have fed him to the Dingo's i reckon.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

That would be murder, possibly premeditated. Your best option would be to help stabilize the man, and laugh internally that he did get what he deserved. But he does not deserve to die.

[tazplas]

Well maybe but i would definitely given him a few extra broken bits to make their life a misery for some time. (arms,fingers etc)

 

Gosh, must have happened during the fall!!!!!!!!!!

 

My personal choice at the end of the day and i have no problem with that.

 

 

Steve

[LeftCoastMan]

You do realize that the police there are investigating it as an assault on the robber/victim, and that a biker gang might have been involved.

 

And Steve, extra broken bits still qualify as an assault. And because the injuries were quite serious, if the guy had died, you would have been charged with murder. In other words, from a strictly legal point of view, don't do it, even if you think you're "morally" right. Revenge never works out as well for the perpetrator as they think it will.

[russell_bynum]

You do realize that the police there are investigating it as an assault on the robber/victim, and that a biker gang might have been involved.

 

And Steve, extra broken bits still qualify as an assault. And because the injuries were quite serious, if the guy had died, you would have been charged with murder. In other words, from a strictly legal point of view, don't do it, even if you think you're "morally" right. Revenge never works out as well for the perpetrator as they think it will.

 

More examples of stuff that is wrong with this once great country.

[tazplas]

At the end of the day, i strongly agree with the OP.

 

Karma at its best.

 

Steve

[tazplas]

 

"More examples of stuff that is wrong with this once great country"

 

Fear not.

 

Still a great country. Met many a fine American in my travels and you do have fantastic and beautiful country.

 

Unfortunately, we all have "PC" dickheads (not aiming at you Orangemarlin)out there everywhere, world wide, who are intent on looking after the perpetrators not the victims because ' aw shucks, he got hurt whilst doing something that he shouldn't have. Surely it can't be his fault'.

 

Maybe they don't need to all die but perhaps they should take a compulsory application form from the Darwin Award website and apply for a position http://www.darwinawards.com/

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

[Paul In Australia]

Hi All

Of course you are right Orangemarlin, but you are being a bit pompous about it.

The Guys obviously realise the full potential of adverse assistance, but the "mind wish of adding to suffering" for what is considered amongst this great organisational communication system, an outrageous crime, is usually a much thought of spoken wish. A wish only and in some what jest.

 

If we all wanted a legal opinion we would have hired a lawyer.

Lighten up, the Guys are just expressing their anger at bike thief's, not planning a lynching.

 

By the way there is NO evidence the person who broke the defendant's nose is responsible for removing the stake. In Australia , the media has reported in fact the accident victim removed the stake himself.

regards

PCH

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Your best option would be to help stabilize the man, and laugh internally that he did get what he deserved.

 

I would be laughing externally.

[RPG]

In the US, it could be depraved indifference which can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Removal of the stake may have actually endangered the thief/victim even further, which could have led to some sort of negligent homicide charge. You actually don't have the right to kill someone taking your property, except in some very strict circumstances.

 

The owner of the bike had his justice with the thief impaled on the stake. His duty was then to call in an emergency, and tend to the victim.

 

Tend to the victim? Duty to call in an emergency? I thought the guy who whose bike was stolen was the victim?

 

I'm guessing the REAL victim of this crime did a huge service in ensuring the scumbag never rips off another bike, which is what true justice ensures.

 

RPG

[BanjoBoy]

Great story.

I had a bike stolen once and that really pissed me off, cuz it's my primary form of transportation. If I ever caught the thief/thieves I'd be more than happy to drive a wooden stake through their hearts!

[Matts_12GS]

More examples of stuff that is wrong with this once great country.

 

 

LOL!

 

how do you really feel Russell?

[Boffin]

More examples of stuff that is wrong with this once great country.

 

 

LOL!

 

how do you really feel Russell?

 

Geographically challenged - the events took place in Australia...

 

Andy

[Matts_12GS]

I think he was speaking to the laments his fellow left coaster...

[tallman]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

 

In the US, it could be depraved indifference which can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Removal of the stake may have actually endangered the thief/victim even further, which could have led to some sort of negligent homicide charge. You actually don't have the right to kill someone taking your property, except in some very strict circumstances.

 

The thief is an idiot and deserves to spend time in prison. But it's not a capital offense, and he doesn't deserve to be treated in the manner that the owner employed. I find it offensive and immoral.

 

 

There is more than one state where you can use deadly force to protect property.

 

[LeftCoastMan]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

 

In the US, it could be depraved indifference which can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Removal of the stake may have actually endangered the thief/victim even further, which could have led to some sort of negligent homicide charge. You actually don't have the right to kill someone taking your property, except in some very strict circumstances.

 

The thief is an idiot and deserves to spend time in prison. But it's not a capital offense, and he doesn't deserve to be treated in the manner that the owner employed. I find it offensive and immoral.

 

 

There is more than one state where you can use deadly force to protect property.

 

That fails the strict circumstances. You're chasing down the thief and then killing him? You will be charged with murder. And most states, you can't use deadly force. According to English Common Law, which America follows, punishment requires a jury of his peers.

 

Let's think this through. What if the man on the stake wasn't the robber? What if the real robber had hit this guy in the escape, and knocked an innocent victim into the stake?

 

Again, no American has the right to play judge, jury and executioner. Nor does anyone in almost every civilized country, which I know excludes Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

[LeftCoastMan]

"More examples of stuff that is wrong with this once great country"

 

Fear not.

 

Still a great country. Met many a fine American in my travels and you do have fantastic and beautiful country.

 

Unfortunately, we all have "PC" dickheads (not aiming at you Orangemarlin)out there everywhere, world wide, who are intent on looking after the perpetrators not the victims because ' aw shucks, he got hurt whilst doing something that he shouldn't have. Surely it can't be his fault'.

 

Maybe they don't need to all die but perhaps they should take a compulsory application form from the Darwin Award website and apply for a position http://www.darwinawards.com/

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

I am hardly PC. I think the thief (if he really was a thief, because there is a strong lack of evidence that he was) really is going to pay a price for his behavior. But no citizen has the right to take a life. And what the victim (a possible bike gang member?) could have lead to the death of the so-called thief. I'd have been pissed, but I would have rendered aid, mainly because I have the skills to do so, I feel morally obligated to help individuals who are hurt. But I would have laughed at his predicament. And I would have enjoyed testifying at his trial.

 

I'm glad most English-speaking countries, whether the US, UK, Canada, Aus, or NZ have juries and trials. Because, what if the story is a lot different than you think. What if there were extenuating circumstances. What if this guy wasn't the thief.

 

 

[LeftCoastMan]

BTW guys, don't even bother to ask me what I would do if someone hurt one of my daughters. I'd be off my high horse in a second!

 

I do appreciate the intelligent discourse, which is what I expect of BMW riders. At the crotchrockets forum, I'm not sure they can put two words together coherently.

[Dave in Doodah]

Again, no American has the right to play judge, jury and executioner. Nor does anyone in almost every civilized country, which I know excludes Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

 

Right or no right, I will be the judge and jury, and my Berreta 96 will be the executioner, if i ever find someone has broken into my house. One thing for sure, when he crosses the threshhold, he has waved all of his rights.

 

One more vote for the OP.

 

PS: I respect orangemarlin's right to his non-PC views, but my personal opinion is his last bit sheds much light on his character and intelligence.

[russell_bynum]

I think he was speaking to the laments his fellow left coaster...

 

Yup.

[russell_bynum]

I think the thief (if he really was a thief, because there is a strong lack of evidence that he was) really is going to pay a price for his behavior.

 

 

Right...maybe he was just confused and thought it was his own bike. Or maybe he's a secret agent and needed the bike to foil a terrorist plot. Or...maybe it WAS his bike and the guy running after him was the one that was confused.

 

lol.

 

Guy stole a bike. Crashed. Hurt himself. Got beat up by the victim.

 

The only injustice was that the bike was surely damaged in the crash.

[motoguy128]

I agree with Marlin.

 

Lethal force is only justified if one's life is threatened. Such as armed robbery or a home intruder.

 

So would some folks on this board condone chasing a kid that stole you motorcycle with your car and running them over??? I hope not. Even in cultures that support harsh punishments, would only cut off a theifs hand.

 

What if the thief is just a drug addict that needs help. Maybe it was jsut a prank or a misguided youth seeing if he could "get away with it". I'm not justifying the crime, only saying thre are often circumstances that will weigh into the level of punishment (as mentioned in the previous post)

 

Ultimately, the American justice system is founded on the principal that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I think that needs to be upheld to pretect those falsely accused. I'm not saying this person was innocent, but the entire case must be examined.

 

 

I hope America's "former glory" is not based on lawlessness and vigilantism (sp?). Although some of that "frontier" mentality can be seen in our obsession with guns and property rights.

[Kitsap]

I agree with Marlin.

 

Lethal force is only justified if one's life is threatened. Such as armed robbery or a home intruder.

 

So would some folks on this board condone chasing a kid that stole you motorcycle with your car and running them over??? I hope not. Even in cultures that support harsh punishments, would only cut off a theifs hand.

 

What if the thief is just a drug addict that needs help. Maybe it was jsut a prank or a misguided youth seeing if he could "get away with it". I'm not justifying the crime, only saying thre are often circumstances that will weigh into the level of punishment (as mentioned in the previous post)

 

Ultimately, the American justice system is founded on the principal that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I think that needs to be upheld to pretect those falsely accused. I'm not saying this person was innocent, but the entire case must be examined.

 

 

I hope America's "former glory" is not based on lawlessness and vigilantism (sp?). Although some of that "frontier" mentality can be seen in our obsession with guns and property rights.

 

I concur.

 

There are many examples of successful, highly thought of individuals in this world that have done some dumb things in their lives. I’m sure we’re not all proud of things in our pasts, I surely won’t be casting any stones.

[russell_bynum]

What if the thief is just a drug addict that needs help. Maybe it was jsut a prank or a misguided youth seeing if he could "get away with it". I'm not justifying the crime, only saying thre are often circumstances that will weigh into the level of punishment (as mentioned in the previous post)

 

I don't care why he stole it. Bad guy did something bad. Didn't get away with it. Hurt himself in the process. I'm supposed to feel bad for him and render aid? Nope, sorry. I might call 911 for him, but I'll be standing there laughing the whole time.

 

 

Ultimately, the American justice system is founded on the principal that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I think that needs to be upheld to pretect those falsely accused. I'm not saying this person was innocent, but the entire case must be examined.

 

Examine this: It's my motorcycle. You took it without my permission. Case closed. Motorcycle crashes are often fatal. I'd say he got off easy.

 

That the victim is being painted as the bad guy here just boggles my mind.

[russell_bynum]

I concur.

 

There are many examples of successful, highly thought of individuals in this world that have done some dumb things in their lives. I’m sure we’re not all proud of things in our pasts, I surely won’t be casting any stones.

 

Oh good grief.

[Dennis Andress]

Wow, this place is getting divided into two schools of thought on everything. Do we have to do this??

 

This guys bike got stolen. He chased the thief and watched him crash. Maybe he knew the jerk so while recovering his bike he stopped to pull the stake out. The thief probably cussed like hell over this so the guy shut his pie hole. It's between them now -- let `em work it out when they get a chance.

 

Dennis

[Quinn]

The part I like best is that the owner took the guy's money to pay for the damage to the bike.

 

 

[Kitsap]

I concur.

 

There are many examples of successful, highly thought of individuals in this world that have done some dumb things in their lives. I’m sure we’re not all proud of things in our pasts, I surely won’t be casting any stones.

 

Oh good grief.

 

Same to ya.

[Polo]

I think the thief (if he really was a thief, because there is a strong lack of evidence that he was) really is going to pay a price for his behavior.

 

Hmmm...

 

He was riding someone else's bike. That someone else was chasing him to recover his bike. Maybe he thought that they had a bike-share program going like they do in some cities, I believe Boston, and Washington. Poor guy, he was just confused...

 

Remainds me about that joke where the attorney cross examines the Medical Examiner whether he was certain that the victim was actually dead; "Well, since I dissected his brain to extract the bullet fragments, I felt safe in assuming so, but I suppose he could be around practicing Law".

 

 

 

 

The only injustice was that the bike was surely damaged in the crash.

[russell_bynum]

Remainds me about that joke where the attorney cross examines the Medical Examiner whether he was certain that the victim was actually dead; "Well, since I dissected his brain to extract the bullet fragments, I felt safe in assuming so, but I suppose he could be around practicing Law".

 

I was thinking of the similar quote from Dirty Harry about a guy chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a....well...we've all seen the movie.

[philbytx]

Extremely Karmic

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Remainds me about that joke where the attorney cross examines the Medical Examiner whether he was certain that the victim was actually dead; "Well, since I dissected his brain to extract the bullet fragments, I felt safe in assuming so, but I suppose he could be around practicing Law".

 

I was thinking of the similar quote from Dirty Harry about a guy chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a....well...we've all seen the movie.

 

 

I love the scene from the film, "Naked Gun", where Leslie Neilson's LEO character paraphrases that Dirty Harry line to defend a similar shooting he executed in a LA area park. His boss then interjects his noble story by adding, "He was an actor in a play you idiot!"

[Paul In Australia]

Hi

 

Well guys we do like a bit of a bash don't we.

Lighten up. The guy stole a motorbike. He is ok, no real harm. NO ONE HERE really MEANS they are going to kill him, it is a discussion about HOW PEOPLE FEEL after being WRONGED.

Brave boasty statements are just that, brave and boasty, not real. Let it go.

 

I personally think it is pretty funny the guy stole a bike and then had an accident ( non fatal, non life disabling).

We are all guessing who did what.

As I said earlier, the original poster from Australia wasn't asking for a legal opinion, just pointing out the irony of the story.

For the record, I presume, EVERYONE here knows you can't kill the poor sod, so lets leave that angle and move onto bikes.

best regards

Paul.

[Huzband]

What about the poor bike? No one has asked what kind it was. How old was the bike? What kind of damage did it suffer?

 

Where's the humanity gone?

[Paul In Australia]

Bloody good point Danny !!

Anyone know how the bike is?

regards

PAUL

[upflying]

Another note on political correctness of suspects who turn into victims.

Been involved in a few officer involved fatal incidents where suspects are shot, injured or otherwise stopped through the use of force. These suspects were using deadly force during contacts with LEO's.

These suspects then transition into quasi victims when they become disabled through the use of force. In a matter of seconds, officers must give this "vicpect" or "sustim" complete first responder care. That includes calling EMS and caring for this injured person who moments ago just tried to take your life. The reason has to do with lawsuits that almost certainly occur after these incidents.

A notable exception to this occurred during the LAPD bank robbery shootout about ten years ago. The second of the two suspects (forgot his name) probably died because officers feared he was carrying explosives and EMS was delayed from entering the hot zone for more than an hour. Aw shucks.

 

The name of the suspect was Emil Matasareanu

 

[tallman]

I wonder what the charges would have been had the thief bled to death?

 

In the US, it could be depraved indifference which can be anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Removal of the stake may have actually endangered the thief/victim even further, which could have led to some sort of negligent homicide charge. You actually don't have the right to kill someone taking your property, except in some very strict circumstances.

 

The thief is an idiot and deserves to spend time in prison. But it's not a capital offense, and he doesn't deserve to be treated in the manner that the owner employed. I find it offensive and immoral.

 

 

There is more than one state where you can use deadly force to protect property.

 

That fails the strict circumstances. You're chasing down the thief and then killing him? You will be charged with murder. And most states, you can't use deadly force. According to English Common Law, which America follows, punishment requires a jury of his peers.

 

Let's think this through. What if the man on the stake wasn't the robber? What if the real robber had hit this guy in the escape, and knocked an innocent victim into the stake?

 

Again, no American has the right to play judge, jury and executioner. Nor does anyone in almost every civilized country, which I know excludes Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

 

Your slandering of certain parts of the country I find objectionable.

Your creating a scenario that I didn't and then telling me what would happen (who made you judge and jury?) I find to be lacking in substance.

Your terminology "strict circumstances" seems to exist in your mind, not the real world.

Again, all I said was that in more than one state you can use deadly force to protect property.

If you don't like that, run for office and change the laws.

Y'all have a nice day and come back and see us when you can.

[beemerman2k]

What about the poor bike? No one has asked what kind it was. How old was the bike? What kind of damage did it suffer?

 

Where's the humanity gone?

 

Now that's classic!

[NoHeat]

What about the poor bike? No one has asked what kind it was. How old was the bike? What kind of damage did it suffer?

 

Where's the humanity gone?

 

And what about stake? Maybe that stake got bent out of shape when it was pulled out of that guy's armpit.

 

And don't forget about the stake's owner. Surely she should be allowed to punch the nose of whoever did that damage to the stake. Maybe even use deadly force, if it was an especially nice stake.

[JayW]

And what about stake? Maybe that stake got bent out of shape when it was pulled out of that guy's armpit...

And don't forget about the stake's owner...if it was an especially nice stake...

 

I hope no fruit was injured in the incident.

 

Jay

[DaveC]

I told my wife about this story. Her responce was; "It was only a motorcyle, he does not deserve to die for stealing it."

Then I asked her what if someone stole your beloved dog and hurt it badly and caused it great pain?

Then she would drive the stake into the bastard, pull it out while twisting it and kick him in the balls.

But it is only a dog dear... he does not deserve to die. ha ha

 

It really depends on your level of emotional attachment to something as to how angry one would get.

I would certainly want to inflict some pain on the punk.

[Schupo]

"There is more than one state where you can use deadly force to protect property."

________________________________________________________

 

Let's keep in mind that, while still on the books in most states, these so-called fleeing-felon laws have been restricted in their application for decades as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Tennessee v. Garner. Bottom line is that you cannot use deadly force to protect property.