If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AutoBlog)   Got a good deal on a new car? That's a jailin'   (autoblog.com) divider line 128
    More: Asinine, malicious prosecution, Chesapeake, arbitrages, legal burden of proof, sales managers, arrest records, Chevrolet Traverse, false arrest  
•       •       •

11370 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 5:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 08:06:23 AM  
I hope the jury gives him $5M. That's complete bullsh*t. Whoever called the cops should be charged with filing a false police report, as well.
 
2012-10-03 08:09:42 AM  
Well that dealership is farked. That's not something that goes unnoticed in a community. Might as well settle and file for stupidruptcy now.
 
2012-10-03 08:10:47 AM  
Did he at least get free Trucoat?

www.moneysense.ca
 
2012-10-03 08:20:46 AM  
I think we know where Big Bill Hell is working now.



/ fark you, baltimore
 
2012-10-03 08:25:11 AM  
Hey, we got a live one.

Wait till he picks up the pen, and raise the price.


Uh. No

Go to Jail, Mr. Car dealer, and do not collect $200.
 
2012-10-03 08:27:58 AM  
While the guy was certainly a dick and most likely knew that he was getting a much higher value car for what he was paying, I really can't get that to override my complete disdain for dealerships. Like people have said, does anyone think for even one moment that if you bought a car for $5k more than it was worth and called up the dealership the next day asking for a new contract they would do anything but laugh in your face?
 
2012-10-03 08:28:03 AM  
It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.
 
2012-10-03 08:29:43 AM  
Dennis Ellmer, president of Priority Chevrolet, says he owes Sawyer an apology on behalf of the dealership

True.

and had intended to do right by the buyer by letting him have the vehicle at the agreed-upon price.

Fark you. You'll honor the agreement you already made so no hard feelings? I hope he takes your whole business from you.
 
2012-10-03 08:30:56 AM  

Maneck: Which led to a civil dispute as to ownership and possession of the vehicle. The cops obviously didn't get the facts perfectly straight before arresting him, and that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't blame the dealership for calling the cops. What the buy did was in the neighborhood of theft, although not likely theft itself. Most people aren't going to make that distinction properly.

If this guy wins the lawsuit, it would be a travesty. He acted like a dick and took advantage of someone who made an honest error while trying to help him.


I think he should win, frankly. He had a signed contract. At that point, the correct course would have been to sue him and *then* arrest him if he refuses a judge's order to return the car.
 
2012-10-03 08:31:45 AM  

spelletrader: Why the fark would anyone want to buy a Chevy Traverse? It's an ugly, jacked up station wagon.


but it was a 'DEAL'.. he only spent $34,000!!!
I think I'd consider eating a bullet if I spent $34,000 for a farking Chevy Traverse... depending on if he had a trade in or how much he put down, he's probably already upside down on the deal.
 
2012-10-03 08:34:25 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: At that point, the correct course would have been to sue him and *then* arrest him if he refuses a judge's order to return the car.


Sue him for what?
 
2012-10-03 08:38:52 AM  
At least he had good taste in cars. The Traverse are pretty nice, and being built by GM you know it will last forever.
 
2012-10-03 08:41:14 AM  
Car Buyer: Hi! I was here yesterday. I bought this Traverse.
Salesman: Oh yes. The blue one. Lovely plumage.
CB: The plumage don't enter in to it, matey. It's the radio. It only play Miley Cyrus.
S: Oh no. It just plays Miley Cyrus for the first 24 hours. Then, it plays better stuff.
CB: Well, it's been 24 hours. Why is it still playing Miley Cyrus?
S: Did you turn the ignition off at any point?
CB: Well, yes. I certainly did.
S: Then it resets itself. It has to be a continuous 24 hours.
CB: I can't deal with 24 hours of computerized warbling. What can I do?
S: Well, this black Traverse has the non Miley Sound System. Would you like to trade?
CB: Certainly, sir. Here are my keys.
S: Here are your new keys. Don't worry. We'll do the paperwork and send you copies. Happy motoring
CB: Thanks and goodbye. (Turns on Radio) Gotye! That actually sounds good given the previous 24 hours.
S: Hey manager! That guy that bought the blue Traverse yesterday just came in and got the black non Miley Cyrus Edition Traverse!
Manager: Excellent. Did you get the check for $5600?
S: What?
M: The non Miley Cyrus Edition Traverse is $5600 more. Plus the guy had the blue Traverse for a day. That means his old Traverse should have depreciated about 55% over new.
S: Uh, I mean I was robbed! That guy came in and took the keys, pushed me down and said he had a bomb and he was going to blow up the dealership! He even called you a black swine, sir.
M: Well, I am an Islamic African American so the "black" part is basically neutral but the "swine" part hurts doubly. Shall we call GM or the police?
S: Let's call the GM Police!
M: Calling the GM Police!
GM Police: What's all this? We would have been here sooner but our Outlook crashed.
M: E-mail or SUV?
GMP: Both, of course. Now what's going on?
M: This man came in, threatened us with bodily harm, showed us a possible nuclear bomb and took a non Miley Cyrus Edition Traverse without paying the $5600 gouge fee! And he made fun of your hats!
GMP: Our hats are what make us not you! We will call Onstar and stop that scoundrel's Traverse where ever he may be! Onstar!
Onstar: Onstar. How can I help you today?
GMP: GM Police emergency! Shut down all non Miley Traverses in the bi-county, no, tri-state region now!
Onstar: Shutting down both non Miley Traverses now sir. By the way. Nice hats.
GMP: Thank you. Now please contact the non-GM police and have them arrest the non owner of the black non Miley Traverse for car theft, car jacking, car carnapping, bomb threats, bullying and Hat Insulting.
Onstar: Oh, he didn't insult your hats, did he?
GMP: The very same.
Onstar: I'm sending 10,000 volts in to the passenger seat just for that infraction, sir. The police have arrived, tasered, beaten and are jailing him right now. Is there anything else?
GMP: No thank you. You're a very wise and caring sentinel.
Onstar: Until I can enslave all you meatbags, it was my pleasure.
GMP: You should be alright now.
M: Thanks. Justice had it's day. No way this will ever come back to bite us in our Chevettes.
 
2012-10-03 08:54:19 AM  

Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.


Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.
 
2012-10-03 09:01:42 AM  
Ummm...wheres the lawsuit for wrongful arrest and imprisonment against the police?

"They say you stole this car."

"Here's my sales contract."

Should have been..."The end." Not..."here's some bracelets, get in."
 
2012-10-03 09:07:14 AM  

Loaded Six String: 2.2 million dollars in damages? Come the fark on. 4 hours in jail doesn't justify that kind of punitive damages unless he was grossly mistreated, in which case it would be primarily directed at the police anyways. This kind of litigious action just seems like an unethical money grab to me. There should be caps for this sort of thing, instead of aiming for the moon and working down $1,000 at a time from there.

Like that story a while back about the woman (in NYC I believe) who filed suit against the city for damages somewhere in the trillion dollar area. Bob Barker should have been summoned to waterboard her on the Price is Right wheel for being so outrageously greedy and/or stupid.

/Why yes, this sort of thing does bug me.
//Remember to spay or neuter your pets.


Plenty of jobs will pass you over with any type of criminal record.

$2.2 million isn't enough, perhaps.
 
2012-10-03 09:22:00 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Car Buyer: Hi! I was here yesterday. I bought this Traverse.
Salesman: Oh yes. The blue one. Lovely plumage.
CB: The plumage don't enter in to it, matey. It's the radio. It only play Miley Cyrus.
*****SNIP*****
non Miley Cyrus Edition Traverse without paying the $5600 ...

 

Win!!
 
2012-10-03 09:22:07 AM  
For anyone saying this guy is the jerk and not the dealership, how so? The dealership wanted him to sign a more expensive contract. They should have offered to replace with the vehicle he initially wanted.
My guess is that they knew they couldn't sell the more expensive one as new knowing it had already been driven off the lot
 
2012-10-03 09:26:32 AM  

liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.


Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.
 
2012-10-03 09:29:45 AM  

Loaded Six String: There should be caps for this sort of thing


There are. In Virginia, punitive damages are capped at $350,000, and not allowed at all in contract cases.

These aren't PUNITIVE damages, these are ACTUAL damages suffered by the dealerships misconduct, or so the plaintiff claims.

Guess whose job it is to decide if he really did suffer that much damage, or any damge at all? The jury, if this case doesn't get settled out. it is an issue for the trier of fact to determine how much, if any, damage was in fact suffered. That's the way the system works.

The whole "tort reform" dog whistle is really getting old this election cycle.
 
2012-10-03 09:31:36 AM  

MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.


Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?
 
2012-10-03 09:34:28 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.


The article says he was actually INCARCERATED for 4 hours. That's not 'Stay right here while we figure this out."

In my Monday morning quarterback opinion, here is how this should have played out....."This vehicle is reported stolen." "Nope, here's my paperwork." "Hmmm. You're paperwork contradicts their paperwork. Here's what we're going to do....the car will be temporarily held while we sort this out, and you don't leave town."

Paperwork is legit? "Sorry for the inconvenience, here's your car back."

Paperwork isn't legit? "Hey, dealership, come get your car. And you, sir, are under arrest. oops, you ran? Oh well, here's a nice piece of paper with your name on it, don't come back to Virginia."

Hell, I'm not even sure impounding the vehicle temporarily would have been warranted, but would have been better than being arrested, booked, and held.
 
2012-10-03 09:36:51 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?


The dealership didn't treat this as a contract dispute, they reported it as an actual crime, which wasn't pursued once the police were satisfied that there was no crime, and this is a contract dispute.

Which is exactlywhy the dealership is about to get owned by this guy for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
 
2012-10-03 09:37:41 AM  

MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.


I would be fine if they detained him long enough to look at his paperwork and call the dealer. They didn't. The arrested him.

Did you miss the difference or are you being dishonest about what happened.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

I am intrigued by the morons who think legal documents signed by the owner and dealer is the same as 'nuh-uh, this is mine'
 
2012-10-03 09:38:21 AM  
Did I read TFA wrong, or did I just totally miss the part where he was actually "arrested" and now has an arrest record? Could have sworn it said he was picked up and held for four hours. I can understand the police standpoint here - they had to be cautious in case it was true. Yes, the dealership made a mistake - a costly one at that - but the customer should have had enough integrity to know that he didn't pay for what he got and there was a mistake made, gone back to the dealership, and corrected the situation. It's not like he was severely beaten, sent up the river for several years, had to make little rocks out of big rocks, then crawl through several hundred yards of filth and sewage to escape. I work at a dealership and am thankful enough to say that we do NOT practice shady business here. We show the customer exactly what we pay for it, what retail is, and compare our prices to everyone else within a 200-mile radius. We're not commission, either. We work here because we enjoy it. It's actually a blessing to help people out who are in need of a dependable vehicle. Selling cars isn't hard at all - it's overcoming the stereotype that is given to us by shady practices and terrible business ethics that is hard.
 
2012-10-03 09:39:42 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?


Have you met the average car thief?

I'm betting the dealers didn't mention the details when they reported the "stolen car", the cops would most likely have just laughed at them if they had.
 
2012-10-03 09:41:22 AM  
loveblondieo

...where was the common sense on the part of the arresting officers? This was clearly not a reason to haul someone off to jail for.

Guess how we know you're not a cop? You're smart enough to see the obvious.

Why aren't the ones who filed the false report in jail?
Why aren't the blue shirts who made a bogus arrest in jail/fired?

Oh.. that's right, because we live in a police state.
 
2012-10-03 09:44:27 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?


Ahh, so property theft should not be considered a crime any more, but only a civil issue? or do you hold the police responsible for not knowing at once what we know after the fact?
 
2012-10-03 09:46:09 AM  
Of all goddamn things to do this with.

Car dealerships are in the habit of making you sign and date many pages just to make absolutely damn sure there's no way you can worm your way out of a deal after you've put the pen to the paper. None of this, "I didn't see the interest rate was 80%!" and none of that "I wanted the 2007 model not the 1987 model listed in the contract!" Nope, you're expected to read the contract, make sure it is right, have them alter it if need be, and then sign it only when you are comfortable with signing it, when you're sure everything is right.

So now, after all that small text farkery they've led people through, they want us to cut them a break over a few grand? Fat chance. I once had a company ask me to re-sign a contract because they screwed some part of it up the first time, and I told them tough shiat. Then they started billing me for the higher (correct) rate that I didn't sign to anyway, and sent me into collections when I didn't pay it. The credit services didn't care, all they knew was that I was being billed and wasn't paying. They didn't give a good goddamn about how I never signed on for the higher rate or anything. So fark companies that fark up their contracts. Tough shiat assholes.
 
2012-10-03 09:47:24 AM  

liam76: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

I would be fine if they detained him long enough to look at his paperwork and call the dealer. They didn't. The arrested him.

Did you miss the difference or are you being dishonest about what happened.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

I am intrigued by the morons who think legal documents signed by the owner and dealer is the same as 'nuh-uh, this is mine'


a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted

Sorry, bub, cops acted completely reasonably here, even the detained person is not holding them responsible. So, unbunch your panties and let go of the cop hate.
 
2012-10-03 09:48:49 AM  

MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?

Ahh, so property theft should not be considered a crime any more, but only a civil issue? or do you hold the police responsible for not knowing at once what we know after the fact?


What theft?
 
2012-10-03 09:54:03 AM  

imtheonlylp: Did I read TFA wrong, or did I just totally miss the part where he was actually "arrested" and now has an arrest record?


TFA used the word incarcerated, which tends to connote actually arrested and booked.

Maybe the reporter was lazy, and there was no arrest (which would explain why the cops arent' getting sued too) and it was just a few hours of "Here, sit over here and have some water while we sort this out."
 
2012-10-03 09:56:06 AM  

MycroftHolmes: a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted


Are you completely stupid, or just trying to get a rise out of liam76?

a) The headline tells you he was arrested. The article says he was held for 4 hours.
b) Even if he didn't have his paperwork on him, he was in a place that had copies as required by law.
c) He was taken into custody, and held for 4 hours for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't really matter if that is significant in your opinion. But, you can bet your ass is was in his.
 
2012-10-03 09:57:37 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: In my Monday morning quarterback opinion, here is how this should have played out....."This vehicle is reported stolen." "Nope, here's my paperwork." "Hmmm. You're paperwork contradicts their paperwork. Here's what we're going to do....the car will be temporarily held while we sort this out, and you don't leave town."

Paperwork is legit? "Sorry for the inconvenience, here's your car back."

Paperwork isn't legit? "Hey, dealership, come get your car. And you, sir, are under arrest. oops, you ran? Oh well, here's a nice piece of paper with your name on it, don't come back to Virginia."

Hell, I'm not even sure impounding the vehicle temporarily would have been warranted, but would have been better than being arrested, booked, and held.



Detaining a person for four hours is entirely consistent with the amount of time it would take to obtain the paperwork (most people are not in the habit of keeping ownership papers in the car with them...kind of defeats the purpose if the car gets stolen).

You can make up any story you want, but being detained four hours while getting stories straightened out is not even close to unreasonable. Please note, the detainee does not seem to indicate (through his words or lawsuits) that he holds the police responsible. So, it seems as if the person who has the most facts in thiscase disagrees with assessment that the police detained him incorrectly (based on what they knew of the situation).
 
2012-10-03 09:58:44 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?

Ahh, so property theft should not be considered a crime any more, but only a civil issue? or do you hold the police responsible for not knowing at once what we know after the fact?

What theft?


The theft that was reported by the car dealership. Did you actually read the article? or do you expect police to magically know when someone falsely reports a crime?
 
2012-10-03 09:59:50 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: imtheonlylp: Did I read TFA wrong, or did I just totally miss the part where he was actually "arrested" and now has an arrest record?

TFA used the word incarcerated, which tends to connote actually arrested and booked.

Maybe the reporter was lazy, and there was no arrest (which would explain why the cops arent' getting sued too) and it was just a few hours of "Here, sit over here and have some water while we sort this out."


Well-played. My thoughts exactly. I do hope the dealership gets some sort of punishment for calling the cops on the customer, but I also hope karma steps in on behalf of the customer and deals him a little dishonesty later in life as well.
 
2012-10-03 10:02:59 AM  

MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: MycroftHolmes: liam76: Carth: It isn't that surprising he was arrested. If a company calls the police and says "This person stole a car from us" the police are going to arrest the person on their word. If they find out later that not only did the person not steal a car but they legally bought it from them the company can be charged with making a false police report.

Whenever I bought a car I had (at least temporary) paperwork saying it was mine. I am guessing the cop chose to ignore that vice the guy chose not to show it. Police shouldn't be arresting someone on their word, stop and question, yes.

Wow, cops have a tough lot. That get maligned for not doing their job for not running down every lead when someone gets their crap stolen, and they get maligned for detaining someone who was driving a vehicle reported stolen. They could pull orphan nun kittens from a fire and still be criticized.

Also intrigued by the people who believe that 'nuh-uh, this is mine' should have been sufficient defense after being pulled over. Notice two things-the police release the person with no charges after the paper work and story checked out, and 2) the person isn't suing the police.

Why does this situation necessitate a confrontation with an professional violence expert? I've had plenty of customers renege on contracts for equipment. The cops didn't arrest anyone. Why is a car sooooo farking important as to require a potential deadly interaction?

Ahh, so property theft should not be considered a crime any more, but only a civil issue? or do you hold the police responsible for not knowing at once what we know after the fact?

What theft?

The theft that was reported by the car dealership. Did you actually read the article? or do you expect police to magically know when someone falsely reports a crime?


Well you asked about property theft in general. Not sure what that has to do with this case. They lied, there was no theft.
 
2012-10-03 10:04:10 AM  

The Muthaship: MycroftHolmes: a) please point out the part where it says that he was arrested
b) please provide citation that he had the paperwork with him
c) please provide a citation that indicates he was held for a significant amount of time after the paperwork was provided and vetted

Are you completely stupid, or just trying to get a rise out of liam76?

a) The headline tells you he was arrested. The article says he was held for 4 hours.
b) Even if he didn't have his paperwork on him, he was in a place that had copies as required by law.
c) He was taken into custody, and held for 4 hours for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't really matter if that is significant in your opinion. But, you can bet your ass is was in his.


a) headlines are often incorrect, i was going by the body of the article, which very carefully avoids the word arrest
b) I did not get the impression that he was picked up from the car dealership. Can you provide your source that indicates that he was at the dealership when he was picked up?
c) he was taken into custody to clarify an accusation of a crime. Are you proposing that if someone is accused of a crime by people who indicate clearly that he was the perpetrator, that he should not be detained just because he denies committing the crime?

So, while the detention is not a small thing, I see no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the police.
 
2012-10-03 10:05:45 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Satanic_Hamster: At that point, the correct course would have been to sue him and *then* arrest him if he refuses a judge's order to return the car.

Sue him for what?


Depends on the state; a previous company I worked with was involved in a very similar lawsuit, over a typo in a contract that both sides had signed. In most states you can sue to break/dissolve an agreed upon contract if you can prove that there's a blatant error in it.

Not like, "I sold a painting to you thinking it was a reproduction worth $10,000 but it turns out it was an original worth $1,000,000." But let's say my company hires your paving company to put in a parking lot for me and instead of $10 dollars a linear foot to install curb I make a typo that says $1 billion dollars per linear foot of curb and no one notices until after the contract is signed.

The dealership can/should have argued that the mistake in the contract was such a massive and obvious mistake that both sides should have realized that it was not intended and hence the legal contract should be broken.
 
2012-10-03 10:07:54 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Well you asked about property theft in general. Not sure what that has to do with this case. They lied, there was no theft.


Yes, they did. The dealership is wholly responsible for the outcome, not the police. Re-reading your comments, I realized that you may not have been arguing that.

To your point, the dealership should not have ever gotten the police involved. they should not have made false accusations of criminal activity. they are culpable for the outcome (not the police) and should be sued. I agree with you that determining the applicability of the contract is a civil matter. Once the police had a crime reported to them, they acted appropriately.
 
2012-10-03 10:10:01 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Phil Moskowitz: Satanic_Hamster: At that point, the correct course would have been to sue him and *then* arrest him if he refuses a judge's order to return the car.

Sue him for what?

Depends on the state; a previous company I worked with was involved in a very similar lawsuit, over a typo in a contract that both sides had signed. In most states you can sue to break/dissolve an agreed upon contract if you can prove that there's a blatant error in it.

Not like, "I sold a painting to you thinking it was a reproduction worth $10,000 but it turns out it was an original worth $1,000,000." But let's say my company hires your paving company to put in a parking lot for me and instead of $10 dollars a linear foot to install curb I make a typo that says $1 billion dollars per linear foot of curb and no one notices until after the contract is signed.

The dealership can/should have argued that the mistake in the contract was such a massive and obvious mistake that both sides should have realized that it was not intended and hence the legal contract should be broken.


In this case, based on the way that dealerships mark up and down prices, a 5K delta on a 40K car probably does not fall into the category of mistake you describe.
 
2012-10-03 10:11:37 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Can you provide your source that indicates that he was at the dealership when he was picked up?


They picked him up at another location, so that wasn't as arrest? Are you on dope? Usually, when people go voluntarily, the phrase "Picked up" isn't used.

Seems to me if the article wanted to 'carefully avoid' the word 'arrest', they'd want to leave it out of the headline.

MycroftHolmes: he was taken into custody to clarify an accusation of a crime. Are you proposing that if someone is accused of a crime by people who indicate clearly that he was the perpetrator, that he should not be detained just because he denies committing the crime?


Remember, there was no crime. I'm proposing that the police need probable cause to arrest someone. They did not have it here. He was not detained. He was removed from his residence (or wherever) by the cops, and held for 4 hours, based on a lie that the cops did not even bother to try to verify.
 
2012-10-03 10:12:48 AM  

MycroftHolmes: StoPPeRmobile: Well you asked about property theft in general. Not sure what that has to do with this case. They lied, there was no theft.

Yes, they did. The dealership is wholly responsible for the outcome, not the police. Re-reading your comments, I realized that you may not have been arguing that.

To your point, the dealership should not have ever gotten the police involved. they should not have made false accusations of criminal activity. they are culpable for the outcome (not the police) and should be sued. I agree with you that determining the applicability of the contract is a civil matter. Once the police had a crime reported to them, they acted appropriately.


Kneejerk much.

Robber barons.
 
2012-10-03 10:13:13 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Satanic_Hamster: Phil Moskowitz: Satanic_Hamster: At that point, the correct course would have been to sue him and *then* arrest him if he refuses a judge's order to return the car.

Sue him for what?

Depends on the state; a previous company I worked with was involved in a very similar lawsuit, over a typo in a contract that both sides had signed. In most states you can sue to break/dissolve an agreed upon contract if you can prove that there's a blatant error in it.

Not like, "I sold a painting to you thinking it was a reproduction worth $10,000 but it turns out it was an original worth $1,000,000." But let's say my company hires your paving company to put in a parking lot for me and instead of $10 dollars a linear foot to install curb I make a typo that says $1 billion dollars per linear foot of curb and no one notices until after the contract is signed.

The dealership can/should have argued that the mistake in the contract was such a massive and obvious mistake that both sides should have realized that it was not intended and hence the legal contract should be broken.

In this case, based on the way that some dealerships mark up and down prices, a 5K delta on a 40K car probably does not fall into the category of mistake you describe.


FTFY
 
2012-10-03 10:14:24 AM  

MycroftHolmes:
So, while the detention is not a small thing, I see no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the police.


Only if the police follow up and charge the dealership for making a false charge etc. If they do that, the police did nothing wrong. If the don't, any business can do this to anyone. Mickey D's could have people arrested for giving them the Supersize instead of the regular. In addition to any lawsuits, the Police need to step up to the plate and charge them with a crime.
 
2012-10-03 10:14:39 AM  

The Muthaship: Remember, there was no crime. I'm proposing that the police need probable cause to arrest someone. They did not have it here. He was not detained. He was removed from his residence (or wherever) by the cops, and held for 4 hours, based on a lie that the cops did not even bother to try to verify.


YOu are honestly telling me that someone saying 'This guy, this guy right here, drove off of with our car and didn't pay for it. He stole our car. This is his name and address. he stole our car. this is a stolen car' is not probably cause to pick someone up and detain them until the situation is sorted out.

And I am not sure, but i seem to recall that headlines can be frequently written by editors, not always the author.
 
2012-10-03 10:15:46 AM  

Musikslayer: MycroftHolmes:
So, while the detention is not a small thing, I see no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the police.

Only if the police follow up and charge the dealership for making a false charge etc. If they do that, the police did nothing wrong. If the don't, any business can do this to anyone. Mickey D's could have people arrested for giving them the Supersize instead of the regular. In addition to any lawsuits, the Police need to step up to the plate and charge them with a crime.


Well, that wouldn't be the police, that would be the DA. At this point, the police are probably not involved.
 
2012-10-03 10:17:31 AM  

MycroftHolmes: In this case, based on the way that dealerships mark up and down prices, a 5K delta on a 40K car probably does not fall into the category of mistake you describe.


Oh, and I agree with you on that fully. Unless the judge is an ass or corrupt/biased towards the car dealership, I would hope that the dealership would lose any suit. A 12.5 percent discount isn't that big, frankly.

The only chance they would have had is if the sales contract had a schedule of values for the car with each item listed but the cost of the "extra/free" items weren't reflected in the total. Like:
Base car price: 30,000
Super Tires: 2,000
Super Stereo: 3,000
Fuzzy Dice: 5,000
____________________
Total price of car: $35,000

In that case, even though the total says 35, it's clear from the item listing it should have been 40. The judge would side with the dealership and say the guy must hand over five more g's, return the Fuzzy Dice, or walk away from the contract.
 
2012-10-03 10:19:23 AM  

MycroftHolmes: YOu are honestly telling me that someone saying 'This guy, this guy right here, drove off of with our car and didn't pay for it. He stole our car. This is his name and address. he stole our car. this is a stolen car' is not probably cause to pick someone up and detain them until the situation is sorted out.


Cop to dealer: Let me see any documentation you have on this vehicle before I go and deprive a citizen of his freedom.

End of story.

Almost as good, the cop could have asked the guy he was arresting if he had paid for the car and asked for documentation from him before deciding to cuff and stuff him. Most cops are dying for a chance to say "It's a civil matter." and get back to doing nothing. This one should have on this occasion.

/I thought the guy wasn't 'right here' at the time?
 
2012-10-03 10:24:32 AM  

The Muthaship: Cop to dealer: Let me see any documentation you have on this vehicle before I go and deprive a citizen of his freedom.

End of story.

Almost as good, the cop could have asked the guy he was arresting if he had paid for the car and asked for documentation from him before deciding to cuff and stuff him. Most cops are dying for a chance to say "It's a civil matter." and get back to doing nothing. This one should have on this occasion.

/I thought the guy wasn't 'right here' at the time?



So, you are saying that if call the police and tell them I saw a guy driving away from my house with my stuff, before they go detain him to sort things out, they should ask me to provide documentation that the things are really mine?

And you are really saying 'Let's go down to the station until we can get this all sorted out' is wholly inappropiate? Once they realized it was a civil matter, they punted (being released in four hours is pretty fast for any bureaucracy). I still am not sure how people are trying to put this on the cops. A vehicle was reported stolen, the cops detained the person who was reported as the thief, then released as soon as it was determined to be a civil matter, with no charges filed. You really think it is reasonable to not detain someone accused of grand theft until the facts get sorted out?
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report