Recently in the news: a guy finds his stolen bike and steals it back.
I wonder if that's legal?
He accosted the guy who was riding the bike and demanded that he hand over the bike. I think, technically, that's mugging. If the guy riding the bike wasn't actually the thief and had just bought the bike on craigslist or something (he said his friend gave him the bike), he might have no idea it was stolen. And suddenly some guy drives up in a car and insists that he hand over his bike?
In this particular case, they were certain that it was the right bike because the serial number matched the police report. But if he hadn't been certain, if he hadn't been able to check the serial number immediately, this could have been a mugging.
In the article, the police say he shouldn't have approached Bike Guy and should have called the police instead, citing personal safety. But what's the actual legal status here? Is it legal to steal back something that was stolen from you? Is it legal to coerce, intimidate, or threaten someone into returning something that was stolen from you? What if you break into someone's home to steal back what is rightfully yours? And what if the guy on the bike wasn't the thief? What if he had actually bought the bike on craigslist or something? Is it illegal to have stolen property in your possession even if you didn't steal it yourself?
7 comments:
It is illegal to have stolen property in your possession. I'm pretty sure if the police believe that you had no reason to know it was stolen, they won't pursue it. But "possession of stolen goods" is definitely a crime.
So is mugging, and so is forcibly taking someone else's possessions (i.e. stealing with assault).
It sure doesn't sound like this guy went about it the right away, or that his actions were legal. It's kind of counterintuitive, though. Seems like it should be ok, but it's not.
So technically, if Person A mugs Person B and then Person B mugs Person A to get their property back, they could both be charged with exactly the same crime? (I realize they probably wouldn't because most judges aren't idiots, but it's a perfectly legal possibility.)
I guess. Weird.
Possession of stolen goods is supposed to be about things like fencing and money laundering operations. Person A steals a bunch of computer equipment, Person B buys stolen equipment (knowing it is stolen or at least having good reason to believe it is) and sells it at a profit, Person B is guilty, too.
But I guess it could be used to charge the aggrieved Person B, too. I should ask one of my lawyer friends.
Possession of stolen property is only a crime if the possessor *knows* it is stolen (and knowledge could be imputed - for example, willful blindness is no defense). Virtually all crimes have this mental element (there is no crime without a guilty mind).
So the person riding the stolen bike might not be committing any crime at all. And further, if that person was a "bona fide purchaser for value without notice," then the original owner might not even be able to recover the bike. The original owner would need to go after the person that fraudulently conveyed the bike to the person riding the bike. Odd, but true.
Or at least, possibly true - I can't confirm that this principle still applies to the situation described. But it might. And that is good enough reason not to assault or steal from the person riding the stolen bike!
P.S. I just re-read the original post. If the bike was given to the man riding the bike (as he claimed), then he is not a "bona fide purchaser *for value* without notice." No value. I believe that the bike's title would revert to the original owner in such a case. He would have been better off saying he bought in on Craigslist.
So the moral of the story is it's better to buy stolen goods than to be given stolen goods for free...
While the laws may vary from place to place, generally speaking, it's okay to take back something that is rightfully yours provided that you aren't committing any other crimes. For instance, breaking and entering (you can't break into someone else's property to retrieve stolen property). It's technically illegal in many cases, but in most it's not pursued.
Morally is another issue, on the other hand. The Non-Aggression Principle says it's justified to use as much force as reasonably required to recover stolen property, and no more. So if it's locked in their house, then breaking an entering would be morally justified. Just don't get caught because it's still illegal.
Hope this helps.
Post a Comment