@TDCN@GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
As I wrote to someone else my reasoning is this. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Or if a company leases big guns that are super dangerous. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN@jbsegal Here’s a concrete example of something I would’ve hated when I was younger and thought freedom and individual rights were everything but now that I’m older and understand that we live in a society (or at least it would be nice if we did), I love it.
@jamesjm@TDCN@GBU_28 this presumes a: the perpetrator has compensation they can pay to the car owner, B: that the car owner can deal without the car, or without the compensation, for the length of time it takes to get the lawsuit processed and paid out. This is not fair to the owner. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, sure. Don’t fuck the car owner.
@jbsegal@TDCN@GBU_28 There are a lot of leasing agencies (small backalley operations) that exist for exactly this cause: leasing cars to speeders and criminals, so they don’t own anything that can be confiscated. This law will stop those businesses.
Bona Fide leasing agencies will just have contract clauses with an employer as a warrantee against the cost of a car when someone drives reckless, or speed limiters installed.
Why would anyone need a car that can do 100km/h over the speed limit?
@nortix@TDCN@GBU_28 forcing the owner to deal with the court system, and to be without a car for however long this takes seems extremely unfair to me. And potentially seriously damaging, if they rely on their car for something. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, but if it is not their car you don’t get to take it away from the person who owns it.
@GBU_28@TDCN@jbsegal@antipode77 just to check. Are you saying it should be valid to impose legal penalty on innocent companies because they are not human? (That is before considering whether the owners and employees of companies that may suffer from a penalty have “human rights”).
A company is a legal construct consisting of a group of humans taking decisions on behalf of a collective we call a company.
As such the decision makers are in the end guilty or innocent. Therefore they are the ones the law must hold accountable for what the company did or did not do.
When guilty these persons must go to prison or pay significant fines.
The company itself must be fined for the damage they did.
@antipode77@revk@TDCN@GBU_28 Does the accused’s elderly parent, who doesn’t know what they get up to, but who needs the car for some reason or another have any? If, after due process it can be shown that they reasonably SHOULD’VE known? Ok, maybe. Before that? Nope.
@jbsegal@GBU_28@antipode77@TDCN I’m all for those who are guilty being punished, which may include a fine or losing some of their property, but it needs to be with due process and without impact on parties that are not guilty of a crime, IMHO.
@TDCN @GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
As I wrote to someone else my reasoning is this. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Or if a company leases big guns that are super dangerous. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN @jbsegal
And are the owners changing the contracts so the driver has to compensate the owner in case of confirmation?
@EikeLeidgens @TDCN @jbsegal I guess they still have to pay the lease?
@TDCN @jbsegal Here’s a concrete example of something I would’ve hated when I was younger and thought freedom and individual rights were everything but now that I’m older and understand that we live in a society (or at least it would be nice if we did), I love it.
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 they have to demand compensation from the driver
@jamesjm @TDCN @GBU_28 this presumes a: the perpetrator has compensation they can pay to the car owner, B: that the car owner can deal without the car, or without the compensation, for the length of time it takes to get the lawsuit processed and paid out. This is not fair to the owner. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, sure. Don’t fuck the car owner.
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 There are a lot of leasing agencies (small backalley operations) that exist for exactly this cause: leasing cars to speeders and criminals, so they don’t own anything that can be confiscated. This law will stop those businesses.
Bona Fide leasing agencies will just have contract clauses with an employer as a warrantee against the cost of a car when someone drives reckless, or speed limiters installed.
Why would anyone need a car that can do 100km/h over the speed limit?
deleted by creator
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 The owner can sue the driver for compensation.
@nortix @TDCN @GBU_28 forcing the owner to deal with the court system, and to be without a car for however long this takes seems extremely unfair to me. And potentially seriously damaging, if they rely on their car for something. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, but if it is not their car you don’t get to take it away from the person who owns it.
@TDCN @jbsegal @GBU_28 quite, that is punishing an innocent party, which seems like a major human rights issue.
@revk @TDCN @jbsegal @GBU_28
Do companies have human rights ? Nope.
@GBU_28 @TDCN @jbsegal @antipode77 just to check. Are you saying it should be valid to impose legal penalty on innocent companies because they are not human? (That is before considering whether the owners and employees of companies that may suffer from a penalty have “human rights”).
@revk @GBU_28 @TDCN @jbsegal
A company is not able to be guilty or innocent.
A company is a legal construct consisting of a group of humans taking decisions on behalf of a collective we call a company.
As such the decision makers are in the end guilty or innocent. Therefore they are the ones the law must hold accountable for what the company did or did not do.
When guilty these persons must go to prison or pay significant fines.
The company itself must be fined for the damage they did.
@antipode77 @revk @TDCN @GBU_28 Does the accused’s elderly parent, who doesn’t know what they get up to, but who needs the car for some reason or another have any? If, after due process it can be shown that they reasonably SHOULD’VE known? Ok, maybe. Before that? Nope.
@jbsegal @GBU_28 @antipode77 @TDCN I’m all for those who are guilty being punished, which may include a fine or losing some of their property, but it needs to be with due process and without impact on parties that are not guilty of a crime, IMHO.
@TDCN @GBU_28 https://www.advrider.com/danish-police-confiscate-about-three-vehicles-a-day/