3 ms·

Imagine this scenario: I report my car as stolen. The police find someone driving a car matching my report, but upon pulling them over, they claim it's not stol

Imagine this scenario: I report my car as stolen. The police find someone driving a car matching my report, but upon pulling them over, they claim it's not stolen and have all the appropriate paperwork, license and insurance. I expect the police would use some judgement and figure out maybe there's been an error or misunderstanding. Provided the driver identifies themselves, provides contact details and everything matches up, the police would almost certainly let them go and follow it up later. Similarly in these cases, I assume the drivers of the "stolen" cars have the keys, some paperwork, email or other confirmation that they hired a car from Hertz and aren't driving or acting suspiciously. The cars won't have been hotwired, the police haven't been provided with any evidence of it being stolen. Provided the driver is compliant with the police investigation and there is no other cause for suspicion, there is no reason to arrest them at that point. Why would a report by a company be treated as different to a report by Joe Bloggs? We had a similar scenario in the UK with the Post Office Scandal. The authorities seem to believe companies without question and give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't to a private individual.

1123581321 4y ago
I don’t agree with your scenario. If the owner showed documentation that they owned the car, and the police found the car and were shown conflicting documentation, they would engage in some additional legwork, likely involving either roadside detention or arrest. If the car owner had been able to have a warrant put out on a specific person; there would definitely be an arrest. The problem is Hertz’ “documentation” is bogus, not that the police pursue stolen cars. (Though, at this point, Hertz reports should be viewed more skeptically by the police.)
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  What's funny is that a few years ago there was a camera 'rental' company much like Uber, where you lent out your gear. There was several issues, one of which was the great lengths they went to imply that your gear was insured, only to find out its not, because insurers considered it "unlawful taking" not theft or fraud, if it wasn't returned. It should be noted that "unlawful taking", despite the name, is not a crime or legal concept, but purely an insurance concept. As a result, somehow, they'd convince the police that this was a civil matter. Yet somehow, refuse to return (or be accused of refusing to return rather) a vehicle gets you lit up for Grand Theft Auto, which is most certainly a crime.

1123581321 4y ago

I don’t agree with your scenario. If the owner showed documentation that they owned the car, and the police found the car and were shown conflicting documentation, they would engage in some additional legwork, likely involving either roadside detention or arrest. If the car owner had been able to have a warrant put out on a specific person; there would definitely be an arrest. The problem is Hertz’ “documentation” is bogus, not that the police pursue stolen cars. (Though, at this point, Hertz reports should be viewed more skeptically by the police.)

FireBeyond 4y ago
What's funny is that a few years ago there was a camera 'rental' company much like Uber, where you lent out your gear. There was several issues, one of which was the great lengths they went to imply that your gear was insured, only to find out its not, because insurers considered it "unlawful taking" not theft or fraud, if it wasn't returned. It should be noted that "unlawful taking", despite the name, is not a crime or legal concept, but purely an insurance concept. As a result, somehow, they'd convince the police that this was a civil matter. Yet somehow, refuse to return (or be accused of refusing to return rather) a vehicle gets you lit up for Grand Theft Auto, which is most certainly a crime.