Posted on 04/20/2011 10:35:36 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
I often see DUI cases or the like where the driver borrowed someone's car so they could drive despite the fact the have no license and/or are suspended.
Why is it the owner of the car is never charged as an accessory to a crime?
If the owner did not file a police report of their car being stolen and the driver has keys, the presumption of guilt and burden of proof should be on the owner of the car. (How else would another person be driving the car?)
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
Its idiotic thinking like this that gives us gun manufacturer lawsuits becuase some idiot commits a crime with a gun.
Lended?
Your own example is proving my point. If you knowingly allow someone to drive your car drunk, you’re liable. That’s far different from someone borrowing your car and getting drunk afterwards. Potentially, just about everyone could conceivably get drunk.
I see your point.
I’d like to see the license plate issue changed.
It’s really too easy to bypass all vehicle registration requirements the way it’s set up here.
How does that work when an individual sells a car?
If it's to a stranger, I go with them to the BMV/Title office, fill out the necessary blanks on the title in front of the notary, have it notarized, and keep my plates. The buyer then has to get temp plates right there.
Now, if it was a sale to, say, my brother, I could have my neighbor the CPA witness and notarize the title, then let my brother take the title and the car with my plates on it for up to 30 days until he gets to the BMV. Then I get my plates back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.