4 ms·

I'm no lawyer, but I think the wrongdoing was when they remotely disabled a car that was owned by someone else. If I think my neighbor owes me $200, I can't ju

I'm no lawyer, but I think the wrongdoing was when they remotely disabled a car that was owned by someone else. If I think my neighbor owes me $200, I can't just lock him out of his house. A lawyer might or might not use fancier words like "coercion" or "extortion," couldn't say.

dominotw 9y ago
<deleted>
- kobeya 9y ago
  ...which they did.
gumby 9y ago
In fact the article says that it could be interpreted as intimidation which of course is illegal on its own.
- _pmf_ 9y ago
  Do it over state borders and you have a nice felony.
  - astolarz 9y ago
    This is in Canada. Do they have the same distinction for crimes committed across provinces as we do in the US across states?
    - smnrchrds 9y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that no such distinction exists in Canada. In the US, criminal law falls under jurisdiction of both state and federal governments. Thus something can be legal in a state and illegal in another. And crossing state lines makes it a federal matter and prosecutable in federal courts. And so many other complicated things. In Canada, criminal law is under jurisdiction of federal government. Thus it is the same across the country, and crossing provincial borders does not change anything about the laws applying to the crime or how they are prosecuted.
jxramos 9y ago
I wonder if they're claiming the immobilizer device as their property, assuming its something substantial they'd want to reuse in another vehicle.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
Funny about all this is that they are charging $200 to remove the immobilizer, and by immobilizing the vehicle it's clear it's not been removed... so why are they immobilizing his vehicle for the $200 charge for removal of a product that they didn't remove? My brain, it hurts. They are asserting that it's their property, but they want to charge to get it back, and will punish you if you don't pay. Man, I love car dealerships.
- wang_li 9y ago
  Also if it's their item and not part of the car that he paid for, he should assess a storage fee and a power usage fee for the device.
- acoard 9y ago
  >they are charging $200 to remove the immobilizer, and by immobilizing the vehicle it's clear it's not been removed You changed tense there, from present to past-tense. They charge $200 prior to removing it in order to remove it. There's no contradiction here.

dominotw 9y ago

kobeya 9y ago
...which they did.

gumby 9y ago

In fact the article says that it could be interpreted as intimidation which of course is illegal on its own.

_pmf_ 9y ago
Do it over state borders and you have a nice felony.
- astolarz 9y ago
  This is in Canada. Do they have the same distinction for crimes committed across provinces as we do in the US across states?
  - smnrchrds 9y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that no such distinction exists in Canada. In the US, criminal law falls under jurisdiction of both state and federal governments. Thus something can be legal in a state and illegal in another. And crossing state lines makes it a federal matter and prosecutable in federal courts. And so many other complicated things. In Canada, criminal law is under jurisdiction of federal government. Thus it is the same across the country, and crossing provincial borders does not change anything about the laws applying to the crime or how they are prosecuted.

jxramos 9y ago

I wonder if they're claiming the immobilizer device as their property, assuming its something substantial they'd want to reuse in another vehicle.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SketchySeaBeast 9y ago

Funny about all this is that they are charging $200 to remove the immobilizer, and by immobilizing the vehicle it's clear it's not been removed... so why are they immobilizing his vehicle for the $200 charge for removal of a product that they didn't remove? My brain, it hurts. They are asserting that it's their property, but they want to charge to get it back, and will punish you if you don't pay. Man, I love car dealerships.

wang_li 9y ago
Also if it's their item and not part of the car that he paid for, he should assess a storage fee and a power usage fee for the device.
acoard 9y ago
>they are charging $200 to remove the immobilizer, and by immobilizing the vehicle it's clear it's not been removed You changed tense there, from present to past-tense. They charge $200 prior to removing it in order to remove it. There's no contradiction here.