- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
You must log in or register to comment.
A Hatfield man is accused of stealing a new Subaru Forester from the Lansdale Public Library parking lot, driving it to Hatfield Police Station to ask for his drugs back, and then driving to Target with the intent of stealing from the store…
As opening sentences go, this one is really strong.
As opening moves go, that was pretty bold.
Christopher Jordan Ganzel, 24, of an apartment on the 20th block of Poplar Street, was charged Aug. 21 with felony theft by unlawful taking, felony receiving stolen property and misdemeanor unauthorized use of a car, according to court documents.
Felony theft and felony receiving shouldn’t be allowed. It’s one theft that got three charges, but it’s these two in concert that really rub me the wrong way. This is why innocent people plead out.
In principle, I get the idea: that you can’t have someone else steal something for you and then get off the hook because you weren’t the one who stole it. That said, I feel like the laws should be written in a way that precludes someone being charged with both for the same offense, or in a way that delegates the fault such that “taking” and “receiving” add up to the consequences of a single theft charge.
Of course, the US is a Prison State so it’s unlikely one wasn’t added simply to pad out sentence lengths or leverage plea deals.
They usually charge people with as many things as they can and the smaller offenses get dropped (often as part of a plea deal).
If you tried to introduce legislation to correct the problem you’d have DAs coming out of the woodwork saying how this would make it impossible to secure plea deals and that would be terrible because they already have too many cases to prosecute. The whole thing would be dead on arrival as a result.
How did that negotiation go? “You got something I want and I got something you want. Let’s trade and go our separate ways”? I bet whoever arrested him has never slapped cuffs on someone so fast
Wait, the car owner left the car, with the key fob in his pocket, and the thief was able to steal it 15 minutes later? Even if the owner left the car on, as the article suggests, would a Subaru let you drive off like that without any valid key fob in the car?
Many modern cars only check for the fob on startup, so you can drive away without the fob but as soon as you turn the car off, you are stuck.
I found this out the hard way by dropping my partner and his keys off at a Dr office and then driving away.
IDK why it doesn’t check for fob before engaging Drive, as would seem sensible.
You only need the fob to start the car in most cases. The car will display a warning that it’s not detected but you can still drive it.
Subaru Forester: “I ain’t no snitch.”
deleted by creator
My wife’s car lets you drive up to half a mile without the fob in the car.
Asking the police for drugs back ? Not a good idea.
Asking the police for drugs back: kingly baller.
I’ll take this guy over the Moms for Liberty and MAGA school board people that have been keeping our area in the news the last year or so. At least this guy is somewhat entertaining…
I first read this as:
Policeman stole new car from Lansdale Library, drives to police station to ask for drugs back
It did seem a little weird, but still believable.
Now this is how you journal. Proper, succinct, on-point sentences that tell the story as it actually is.
