3 ms·

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 documentati

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.