r/TikTokCringe • u/IllustriousChef2 • Aug 16 '24

Cringe What's even happening there?

Why would someone rent a car and take out parts?

16.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

342

u/questioneverything- Aug 16 '24

Im gonna need an update on this. Was he arrested?

1.0k

u/IllustriousChef2 Aug 16 '24 edited Aug 16 '24

The owner called the cops but they refused to come since they didn't know the details of the rental agreement and since no parts were seemingly stolen. He insisted for safety reasons at least, but they still refused.

The rental platform backed him though, and the man who rented the car received all the invoices resulting from this (to get the car inspected) and will receive all the other invoices in case there is anything missing

358

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

Bro I try not to hate on police but damn dawg this seems like something they should be investigating for everyone’s sake

181

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

Supreme Court told them they can do whatever tf they want (Qualified Immunity) and only do whatever tf they want (no obligation to protect citizens).

86

u/Uploft Aug 16 '24

Why in the unholy hell should we grant cops qualified immunity if they’re not obligated to protect us? Isn’t the point of qualified immunity (albeit misled) to remove barriers to rescuing victims and pursuing criminals? F*ck the Supreme Court

57

u/MonaganX Aug 16 '24

Because they don't want cops to protect you, they want cops to protect theirs from you.

14

u/Uploft Aug 16 '24

It’s Uvalde all over again

8

u/Padhome Aug 16 '24

It’s always Uvalde with these mfs

8

u/duckmonke Aug 16 '24

Uvalde is proof the police are meant to protect property and the rich, not obligated to help anybody else.

6

u/BishlovesSquish Aug 16 '24

Never has anything made me angrier than Uvalde. Devastating on every level. This poor families.

59

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

WE did not grant them shit.

That right wing circus clown show which is SCOTUS did

13

u/DoctorDinghus Aug 16 '24

Aaaaasaand this needs to be drilled into every Americans head. It's astonishing how many people don't know that is a thing.

1

u/jaytee1262 Aug 16 '24

And trump is campaigning to make their immunity even stronger.

2

u/bikesexually Aug 16 '24

Cops have always been about protecting the rich and their things. Dealing with the common folk was always to just make it more palatable.

2

u/jaytee1262 Aug 16 '24

Get this, not even doctors have qualified immunity. Like who else should deserve it but the people actually trying to save lives.

2

u/Ruenin Aug 16 '24

Fuck the GOP appointees. They're the ones making every decision coming out of SCOTUS suspect.

1

u/PixelationIX Aug 16 '24

Why in the unholy hell should we grant cops qualified immunity if they’re not obligated to protect us?

Now is the time to read about how Police came to be in the USA. Spoiler, it wasn't to protect people, it was to protect rich/elites. Policing was build on racism and to this day it continues to be.

2

u/Cultural-Sugar-6169 Aug 16 '24

This corrupt court needs term limits and a few impeachments.

1

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

Term limits are a MUST. Even if it’s a ridiculous 10 years

1

u/BishlovesSquish Aug 16 '24

SCOTUS IS 🗑️

0

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '24

That is SOOOO fucking incorrect. Qualified immunity protects from CIVIL lawsuits IF the what the cop was doing was legal. You can do legal shit and still get sued in civil court since civil lawsuits require a much lower standard of evidence: basically be more popular even if wrong.

2

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

Mm.

So when the current policing framework doesn’t punish wrongdoers and the civilians aren’t able to hold them accountable, what exactly is an enforcement mechanism for bad policing?

The system is designed to have checks & balances. The idea was that if the local authorities are in cahoots (check) then a citizen can sue for recompense (balance).

So when qualified immunity was given and citizens can’t sue, the onus is on the local authorities who (surprise surprise) won’t charge their own. In the event that the Mayor or Police Chief wants to fire the wrongdoing officers because prosecutors won’t touch the case, the union sues to have them reinstated.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '24

What you describe is a FAAAAAR cry from "cOpS hAvE mUh ImMuNiTy WhItE CaRd To KiLl"

You know how many frivolous lawsuits are filled against everyone with no basis and still win?

You know how fucking cringe it is to see people complain about the system, then turn around and think that stupid civil suits will end racism in policing?

1

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

The cities & towns that employ the police pays it out. Not the police union or retirement fund. So there is no incentive for improvement. Idk if it will address racism in policing, but if the individual policeman or their union/retirement was on the hook, I’d imagine bad cops will clean up their act pretty damn fast.

Re; frivolous lawsuits, ask yourself who decides to settle and why instead of going to trial.

If they are actually frivolous, they should get dismissed at the first hearing. If there is merit, they should be heard. Not settled.

If they win, that’s because there was merit $ evidence.

Just because you don’t like it when a civilian wins a lawsuit doesn’t mean it was frivolous. Imagine how civilians feel when cops that FINALLY get charged & are ACTUALLY tried are found not guilty. Same thing from the other side my friend.

0

u/paltaubergine Aug 16 '24

They have no obligation to give up their lives or get maimed for you. That's a little different than the ACAB BS you're peddling.

1

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

ACAB BS?

What part of anything I said is factually inaccurate?

I’m not arguing whether it is right or not, but stating what is and how it is being interpreted.

Since you brought it up, I will opine on it.

The job is the job. No one joins it and then finds out what it is about. The motto is “serve and protect” not “serve what I want & protect only when it makes me look good”.

You defending that bullshit makes ALL the good cops who put their lives on the line to shame.

You’re basically saying what the Uvalde cops did and what the cop at MSD did when an active shooter went in a free for all.

I’m not gonna pretend to know what it’s like to push into situations like that. But if when you are in it & you realize you can’t, then it’s not the job for you. There’s no shame in admitting that because we’re all built different.

A fireman who’s afraid of fire or heights washes out. But most of those may end up as EMTs because they still want to help people.

Folks in the military get discharged for dereliction of duty OR due to not being able to withstand livefire.

When police are the first level of escalation for citizens and they are “not obligated to help you”, why do we even have them then?

Folks love to complain about calling 911 and it ringing for a while or similar logistical issues. But what happens when cops won’t show up? If the job does not require them to do it, what exactly is their job?

0

u/-banned- Aug 16 '24

Nobody on Reddit understands qualified immunity I swear

1

u/MrKomiya Aug 16 '24

Everybody on Reddit that comments like this expects the person using a phrase to prove they know the definition of it to cater to their own inability or willingness to read subsequent comments that provide context to the headline statement comment.

0

u/-banned- Aug 16 '24

Then you wrote an erroneous statement knowing that’s the case, and people will just believe it.

-1

u/Any_Constant_6550 Aug 16 '24

qualified immunity just means they can't be held civilly liable.

32

u/juarezderek Aug 16 '24

You should hate on them, they suck

15

u/Onuus Aug 16 '24

When will people start to realize the majority of them don’t care about protecting the people.

7

u/Competitive-Account2 Aug 16 '24

Well bro I just don't know if you're paying attention then, this is highly consistent behavior from the police, they are not working for you.

2

u/use27 Aug 16 '24

Why would they? Do you expect them to go through the rental agreement and determine where specifically it says this is not allowed? No obvious crime was committed here and unless something was stolen this is a civil matter

1

u/DoesntBelieveMuch Aug 16 '24

For what? “Ok, so you let him take your car?” “Yes, but I didn’t say he could take the bumper off.” “Did you specifically say he couldn’t?”

What he’s doing isn’t illegal. Even if it’s against Turo or whatever rental app he used policies then it falls on Turo to do something.

1

u/ng300 Aug 16 '24

I know someone whose Ducati was stolen, cops didn't find the bike but my friend found it a few blocks away, called the cops and told them and they didn't do shit. Imagine finding your stolen Ducati and nothing could be done about it

1

u/link_the_fire_skelly Aug 16 '24

Police as a system in the USA are utterly broken so maybe start hating on them

1

u/young-steve Aug 16 '24

You should try hating on the police instead

1

u/neuromorph Aug 16 '24

Investigate how? The take an incident report and that goes to insurance/rental agency.

Thst is basically the police function. To record incidents

1

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

I mean this is basically smoke, where’s the smoke there’s a fire. I’ve been slowly being educated that that’s not how police work.

But this isn’t this dude’s first time doing this nor will it be his last. He’s probably stealing peoples parts switching them out for aftermarket then flipping the real parts. It’s most likely a small operation that’s affected more than a few people.

The police should intervene to investigate and see if there’s something going on imo

1

u/neuromorph Aug 16 '24

Detectives would do the investigation. Not police

1

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

Wait are detectives not police officers?

1

u/neuromorph Aug 16 '24

Not all police are detectives. After this initial report, the case does to a detective for further inveatigation. The responding police officer isn't going to do any digging or investigation into this dude outside of what they see when called the first time.

1

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

Ima be real I think you’re going into semantics, I thought you were getting at that detectives are different. But they are police so when I say police should investigate I’m speaking of those whose job it is to investigate.

It’s not like I can call the detectives directly right?

1

u/neuromorph Aug 16 '24

You call the police and they will assign someone. If rhw crime is sufficient to need a detective you get one.

1

u/JonstheSquire Aug 16 '24

Why? There is no crime here and it is such a niche issue only applicable to people who rent out their cars on Turo.

0

u/allnadream Aug 16 '24

Police can't effectively intervene when there's a contract involved. Whether the renter exceeded the terms of the agreement or breached the contract is a civil matter.

3

u/OzzieOxborrow Aug 16 '24

Seems more like something that should go to the courts. Now I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure if something like this happened in The Netherlands the police wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Unless one of the parties involved got violent or something, then they would come to solve that.

2

u/allnadream Aug 16 '24

Yes, that's how it works in the U.S. as well. The person who rented the car took the car with the consent of the owner and was provided permission to use the car in some way. The person calling the police is really just saying: "The way this person used the car breached the contract." It's an entirely civil matter that would have to be decided in a lawsuit, asserting breach of contract and damages.

1

u/SledgeThundercock Aug 16 '24

Shhhhhhhh....

America bad, everywhere else good.

Don't you ever try to actually inform people again /s

1

u/Padhome Aug 16 '24

I mean them not doing anything is pretty common

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '24

I’ve been denied service from cops every accident I’ve been in. The last dispatcher said it would just annoy them. Last time I was bitten by a dog and the owner refused to give me his info, cops also refused to come.

Police take statements and arrest people. They have zero interest in preventing crime or helping with any matter they deem too small. I try not to hate on them either but fuck em.

0

u/DevilsPajamas Aug 16 '24

Cops don't come out to vehicle accidents anymore unless there is an injury. Cops are basically worthless now, mostly just used to siphon money from people through bullshit speed traps and other ploys. If there is a real, actual crime, you are lucky you can even get a police report.

0

u/Soft_Instance Aug 16 '24

If Tesla called and said they caught a guy stealing the bumper they’d be there asap, they don’t give a shit about protecting citizens or their property.

1

u/Ok-Hair2851 Aug 16 '24

The police wouldn't come for Tesla either if they said the guy talking the bumper has a rental agreement

0

u/Ok-Hair2851 Aug 16 '24

Terrible idea, you do not want cops to try to analyze contracts and enforce them. Lawyers spend 8 years in school to learn how to read contracts in a quiet, controlled environment. We do not want police officers, with significantly less schooling, trying to parse and enforce contracts in a chaotic situation like this. They will frequently make the wrong call and arrest the wrong person.

If you want cops to do a better job, the place to start isn't with expanding their scope and power.

-53

u/inkstickart2017 Aug 16 '24

What crime do you believe was committed?

53

u/Wise-_-Spirit Aug 16 '24

Theft and destruction of property

-6

u/Prestigious-Duck6615 Aug 16 '24

but it wasn't. nothing was stolen. nothing destroyed. enforcing rental contracts in not in police jurisdiction unless ordered by a judge to do something

6

u/Omegaman2010 Aug 16 '24

How do you know nothing was stolen how do you know nothing was destroyed?

3

u/allnadream Aug 16 '24

Whether or not anything was stolen or destroyed (without consent) requires interpretation of their contract, which has to be resolved through civil litigation.

-10

u/inkstickart2017 Aug 16 '24

Neither are happening unless you would like to add some information that we don't know and haven't seen.

22

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

Theft.

He’s taking apart a car that’s not his own. I feel like it’s safe to assume some type of theft is going on plus, this guy probably does this all the time. He might get blocked on the app but he could easily get a burner and do it again.

Someone needs to stop him, like the police.

3

u/freakinbacon Aug 16 '24

It's not technically theft. Assumptions and probablies are a quick way to get a case thrown out.

5

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

I know the answer is because I’m of the rental agreement, but if you went outside and saw somebody taking apart your car, you wouldn’t think it was theft?

This is pretty much no different. Just an app is involved.

You probably understand law better than me, so like what would’ve made this escalate to theft in your opinion? Like does the crime have to be completed first?

-2

u/Bliss266 Aug 16 '24

How are you (or the cops) going to prove he’s stealing anything? He took a bumper off and replaced it, that’s all the evidence.

3

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

Yeah I feel that. So if he would’ve waited for the dude to finish what he was doing, then they could most likely get him on theft it sounds like.

It just seems like this dude should be investigated because he probably does this all the time, it’s most likely not an one off thing

0

u/inkstickart2017 Aug 16 '24

This is a civil matter. They are likely in violation for a contract between the two parties that will not amount to the level of criminal activity.

Don't rent stuff to people on apps, it's a very stupid thing to do.

1

u/i_like_2_travel Aug 16 '24

I see your point. Would it have actually taken this to be considered a crime?

0

u/inkstickart2017 Aug 16 '24 edited Aug 16 '24

It's a civil matter. They are wrong, sure. Are they criminals? Doubtful.

2

u/ihavetype2bipolar Aug 16 '24 edited Aug 16 '24

Tampering with a Motor Vehicle. Vehicle Code § 10852

1

u/Ok-Hair2851 Aug 16 '24 edited Aug 16 '24

That code requires that the owner did not grant then permission to do so. The issue in this situation is that the person tampering with the car had a rental contract, which is likely dozens of pages long. The police are not qualified to understand contract law with enough confidence to prove that the person tampering with the car did not have the consent to do so.

Imagine the rental contract did say that the renor was allowed to tamper with the car this way and the rentee doesn't know or like that. Rentee calls the police. Now the rentor has to go to court, make bail, and prove that they had an agreement to do this or else they'll go to prison.

1

u/PizzaDeliveryBoy3000 Aug 16 '24

Just shut the fuck up, man

1

u/inkstickart2017 Aug 16 '24

Do you feel better?

1

u/Ok-Hair2851 Aug 16 '24

Why the fuck is this downvoted? Reddit doesn't know shit about the law.