Suspected car thieves arrested after sending selfie to vehicle owner

To steal a car, take a selfie and send it to the victim, not too bright.

To steal a car, take a selfie and send it to the victim, not too bright.

It's amazing how, when reading the comments after the actual story, many people are blaming the owner of the vehicle for leaving it unlocked and running. Granted it isn't the smartest idea in the world but they are outright blaming the victim. I guess these little 'angels' were simply looking out for the environment and were just going to turn the vehicle off and it slipped into gear and off they went, or maybe they were going to go wash it for the nice lady.

I know it was a crime of opportunity but a crime none the less.

Well we know about car thieves, blaming them is pretty pointless, they don't care. But if you invited them in, then you deserve some derision yourself. So dumb thieves, dumb owner.

Just kids being kids right?

The title isn't clickable. This link is.


I hope you're being facetious. A car is a very expensive piece of equipment. Children learn right from wrong from their parents before starting grade 1. If parents failed to teach them that, then it's the parent's fault. The government passed laws stating adults are responsible for damage caused by minors. Courts have refused to enforce that law. How do we get courts to do so?

Alternatively, in the 1800s you were treated as an adult by the time you're this age. Stealing a car is a very serious adult crime. Treat them as such. Convict them in adult court, and sentence them to adult penitentiary. One or the other. And criminals need to pay restitution. Car insurance pays for theft, but criminals need to reimburse the insurance company. How do teenagers work off that much money?

Regina had fun with some little shits stealing a vehicle then ramming 16 vehicles for shits and giggles

I don't know what problems you may be having as the title links to the site with no problems for me....

This thread is Ok now. It had displayed just the URL, not the title we see now. And it wasn't clickable. And no posts before PJB, not even the Newsbot post. Call it a database glitch.

Okay, I see what happened, you were responding to PJB's post, while at nearly the same time I was merging the two threads into the one here.

Kids, even when they know and understand right from wrong, still act impulsively. We know that about kids, which is why they have reduced criminal responsibility.


"That law"? Which law? Are you talking about civil or criminal court? Parents have always been responsible for the damages their children do in terms of civil law. So courts haven't "refused to enforce any law". And that's common law, not a statute, not a "that law" to be enforced. You can't make someone serve another's penalty for criminal law. So, I don't know what you're talking about here. You want to send Mommy to prison because Johnny steals cars?


Actually, no. Prior to the Young Offenders' Act (1984) there was no specific age that made one an "adult" under criminal law. Yes, it usually meant people under age 16 and under, but people in their early 20s were frequently charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which treated young offenders as "wayward" children in need of guidance rather than criminals. That's why youth custodial facilities were called "Training Centres".

There's no such thing as an "adult crime". We don't try anyone under 18 in adult court anymore. That was one of the main purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003). Furthermore, we don't put children in adult prisons anymore. Jesus, man, what are you thinking? You want to throw teenagers out for a joyride into the Black Hole of Calcutta!?!?

Insurance companies can sue for damages in civil court. If the defendant is a child then its their "next friend" (an adult, usually parent, who represents them in court) who is actually sued and will be responsible for damages awarded by the court.

I'm not sure you're comprehending the difference between civil and criminal law.

Are you talking about civil or criminal court? Parents have always been responsible for the damages their children do in terms of civil law. You can't make someone serve another's penalty for criminal law. So, I don't know what you're talking about here. You want to send Mommy to prison because Johnny steals cars?

I see you don't get it. Real normal people do not have the financial ability to sue. Only rich spoiled brats can do that. You also see you only know a portion of the history. I remember when I was a child, media announcement of a new juvenile offenders act. It was late '60s or early '70s, I was too young to remember the exact date. It stated criminal court is REQUIRED to award damages as part of the criminal sentence, and parents or legal guardians are required to pay. But the courts refused to enforce it.

Yes, Mommy has to pay for the car because Johnny committed a crime. Mommy is responsible for the actions of the child, and is required to ensure the child doesn't commit a crime. Whether its armed robbery from a convenience store, house break-enter-and-theft, vandalism, or car theft. Mommy is supposed to have taught the child not to do that before the child was old enough to enter grade 1. If the child still hasn't learned, it's Mommy's fault. And it is Mommy's responsibility to ensure the child doesn't do that. If the child does, then the adult responsible for the child does have to pay. For not only what is stolen, but also damages caused. If a parent refuses to accept responsibility, that constitutes an abdication of parental authority, so the child must be taken by Child and Family Services, put somewhere an adult will be responsible.


That Juvenile Offenders Act also made the adult responsible for the child (parent or legal guardian) responsible for damages caused. That means criminal court is required to award restitution for damages caused as part of the criminal sentence. But again the courts refused to enforce it. You mention the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003), that one also required courts to award restitution as part of the criminal sentence, but again courts refused to enforce it. Finally the Manitoba Legislature passed legislation permitting victims to sue in civil court, stating that parents must pay for what their child has been convicted of doing. But that requires a second trial for the exact same offence. Most people can't afford the time to go to court, and certainly can't afford a lawyer. I could give you horror stories of lawyers refusing to take my case, not because of the case, but just because I was a nobody and the individual defrauding me had a important position in a big name organization. Re-trying in civil court is just not possible for the majority of Canadians.


That those criminals did is not a "joy ride", they committed auto theft and malicious destruction of private property. That's a very serious criminal offence. That offence has very serious consequences. There are only two options: the adult responsible has to pay, or the individuals who committed the offence pays. If you claim no adult is responsible, then the default is the individuals are responsible. You don't seem to understand, by claiming the adult responsible is not responsible, you are saying the teenagers are adults.


You don't understand. Real people don't have access to civil court. And don't tell me they do. It's my personal experience that when a person who is not considered "important" tries to do anything, that person is treated as a joke, and the "important" person gets everything he/she asks for. And lawyers refuse any case for an individual who isn't "important". Normal people don't have a law degree, don't know the procedures, and lawyers who are supposed to help with that just won't.


You're not comprehanding: whenever you say the case has to be tried twice, you're saying the offender will not be held responsible. Period. The second case is just an excuse to let the criminal offender off.

After reading your responses, I'm further convinced that you don't know what you're talking about. You still don't seem to comprehend the difference between criminal and civil responsibility. And you're seeking election? No offence, but you'd best bone up on your legal studies first.

You don't know what you're talking about. Restitution is awarded as part of a criminal sentence, not civil. The law was changed to require judges to award restitution, the fact they refuse to do so is an issue. You're trying to claim you're an expert, but you don't understand restitution.

As for election: we certainly DON'T want just lawyers. Elected officials must be from all parts of society, not just lawyers. I know numbers, I've written computerized accounting systems, stock broker systems, tax collection systems, and government department computer systems many times. I know budgets, I know money. Most lawyers couldn't balance a budget if their lives depended on it.