Man Chasing Teens Who Stole His Car Charged Multiple Times

This is the news

3 teens stole a car, and the owner chases them in another car ( probably second car )

Now it seems he gets charged "The man has been charged with Dangerous driving occasioning death – drive manner dangerous, Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – drive manner dangerous and Negligent driving (occasioning death)."

Why is it now his fault, when the teens stole his car, and smashed into a pole ?

I heard from my son, that some kids, on L plates ( of course not displaying them ) get a thrill by driving 100km/h on straight roads ( don't think highways )

I also know of another kid, that has been caught driving his parents car with friends without having a license ( not even a learner one ), who got away with not even a warning.

Does that mean that you better not chase the thieves ?

Why is the police so lenient with Kids and Cars ?


  • +105 votes

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Police are charging him as part of the required process, highly doubt he will actually be convicted.

    • Yep. Break the law, get charged. The thieves are not getting off for nix either, they’d be charged if they weren’t deceased.

    • I agree but it's unfortunate that he will probably spend 5 figures on legal fees that can't be recouped.

      • He doubt he will spend that much. It will get pleaded down to a lesser charge more relating to road rage.

        Unless the owner deliberately ran the kids off the road or ran into them or did something to cause the car driven by the kids to lose control, it's more of a publicity/social media appeasement strategy to charge the owner with these offences.

    • Provided he did not make contact with the other car before it crashed, I hope you're right, and he won't be convicted.

      However, if he did make contact, that's not giving chase, that's running someone off the road.

      Still, I wonder what the court's position is regarding "aggressively pursuing" a thief. Driving in a threatening manner might be punishable, but my first impulse is to compare it to chasing a bagsnatcher on foot - if he runs into traffic or falls off a bridge, how is that my fault?

      • Exactly that last point is spot on. If you love cars, which he clearly did, I'd say the theft of the car is comparable to someone stealing the family dog. You'd clearly run after them and in those moments, not think of the consequences (not that you should) to make sure you could get it back in one piece.

        I get them charging him with speeding/red-light offences and other reckless driving offences (possible temp licence removal), but charging him with offences incl. "occasioning death" is completely un-justified. They'd obviously driven like idiots anyways, and being aged 15/17, they'd have a fairly high chance of crashing regardless of his involvement . They easily could've complied and pulled over when he was chasing them and then ran out of the car, but they decided to out-run him and paid for it.

        • Agreed regarding charges for speeding, failing to give way, failing to stop, running red lights etc.

          But nobody else was harmed by this guy's driving, just the perps, which makes it seem like he couldn't have been driving that recklessly.

          That said, I don't want to see the thieves dead, I don't think anybody does, despite the bluster in this thread.

          I think that the burden of proof would be on the crown to demonstrate this guy was the reason for their crash, and given they were fleeing the scene of a crime (where they stole a vehicle for joyriding), it is reasonable to suggest that they would be fleeing recklessly regardless of anybody in pursuit. Might not be the whole truth, but it's a truth that serves a sense of justice. Provided he didn't run them off the road, of course.

          • @ozbjunkie: @ozbjunkie, I agree with you re: he couldn't be driving that recklessly, (it was during the night and its very unlikely he incurred much traffic).

            I just meant that those charges would be the upper limit of what I would expect to be justifiable/reasonable by NSW police to give the owner in regards to his actions, and that even then he would likely get them quashed in court/reduced.

            and again, I totally agree with your last paragraph.

        • Exactly that last point is spot on. If you love cars, which he clearly did, I'd say the theft of the car is comparable to someone stealing the family dog. You'd clearly run after them and in those moments, not think of the consequences (not that you should) to make sure you could get it back in one piece.

          If anyone stole anything of mine of significant sentimental value and I know who it was or there at the time I would definitely chase down that thief! (profanity) the police! hahahaha I'm taking that (profanity) down - get him to admit fault and surrender peacefully and I may let him off if I feel like it or give him a good beating and then leave! Or at least die trying if he turns around with a gun or something….and shoots me dead…

        • What evidence do the police have of speeding and running red lights?

        • Not sure I agree. If you chase after someone on foot, you are very unlikely to hurt any innocent bystanders.

          However, chasing someone in a vehicle (assuming you're travelling at high speed, running lights, etc) has a decent chance to get a bystander killed/injured and should therefore be punished. Just because it might appear on the surface to be morally OK, doesn't mean it should be legal.

          Would you forgive someone if they ran over a family member of yours while chasing someone who stole their car?

          In the case of the perps being injured - by chasing them, he's increasing the risk of an accident. You can't reasonably expect them to stop while being chased (who would - the guy might be TRYING to kill you after you stole his car). The thiefs are initially in the wrong, but that doesn't give you permission to endanger their lives.

    • Police don't normally take the charge to court unless they think they can win, the process is pretty expensive

  • Well we don't want a police force and judicial system that is seen to be targetting the vulnerable youth.

    • You're right. You don't want a police and judicial system targetting vulnerable youth, we want support services to help turn them into productive members of our community rather than lifelong criminals that only cost us all.

      • That's working well so far…

        When you have a system that rewards bogans, drug addicts and ferals for having kids, all you are going to continue getting is a cycle of bogans, drug addicts and ferals, with the odd few who escape.

        • It is working, as the discussion went below, the break and enter and motor vehicle theft rate is a quarter of what it was in 2000, the robbery rate is down by 80%.
          Also, you are completely correct when you talk about a cycle , it is. The way that you progress and create less victims is to help create less criminals and crime, put in processes and support to help break the cycle.

          • @Lachy2437: Yet we have near double the prison population of 2000? Something doesn't add up.

            What exactly is being done then? Bogans and scumbags are paid to have kids. Nothing is done to remove children from bad/abusive households.

            They should pay people $5k to get sterilised, then only people who want to have kids and who will actually care for them, will have them.

            • @brendanm: Once again, the statistic you have chosen is almost completely unrelated, what exactly is it supposed to prove? That sentences are longer in 2020? That the population has increased? That less people are given bail? That there is a war on drugs?

              "Bogans and scumbags" come on mate, get off your high horse. You're still talking about people, even if they're uneducated, poor etc etc. The whole us and them idea without care and empathy is a terribly sad view of the world.

              • -1 vote

                @Lachy2437: Australia is far too lenient on criminals, and prison conditions are far too good. Too many bleeding hearts and PC people jumping up and down about human rights and other silly claims. It is often these low socioeconomic demographic commit petty crimes like burglary, stealing cars, robbing liquor stores etc. The welfare system is too generous which allows these sorts of people to have spare time to go out, steal cars, break into people's houses etc. If the "bludger's net" wasn't there, then they'd actually have to spend their energy focusing on how to make a living, earn some money to buy cigarettes and put "food" on the table. Youth in particular know they cannot be touched - if they do, they just go into a retreat, make new criminal friends and re-offend until they turn 18. It really is out of control in Australia. If prison conditions were like those in Thailand, Mexico or Colombia, these idiots would think twice before offending. Stay home on cushy tax payer funded centerlink cash, or get thrown in prison where inmates have to fight over clean drinking water and minimal rationed food (or no food)….hmmmm

                • @eek: Oh yeah good job, be like America where crime is 100x worse because the people who are unable to work cannot get any assistance so they rob people just to afford a burger and kill people just to buy smokes, you really think no welfare would make things better actually not.

                  No assistance just creates more desperate people in the lower socioeconomic class and more crime and more drug dealing to pay the bills.

                  • -3 votes

                    @Willco88: There are countries, that have had no welfare support and haven't had any for decades. There aren't hoards of criminals running around looting and pillaging. These so called 'developed western nations' have had things too easy for far too long and these softies now can't deal with even a little bit of a struggle. Weak. I'm all for capital punishment and enslaving using prisoners for manual labour.

                    • @eek: I didn't realise treating people like crap had such fantastic results,Thailand, Mexico and Colombia must have a fantastic quality of life and better conditions with lower crime than us… Oh, damn… That's not actually true.

                      A focus on punishment reduces your chances at rehabilitation which should be EVERYONE'S goal. It costs a bloody fortune to keep someone locked up, over $100k per annum. If they then come out and commit more crimes all you have is more victims, that doesn't make sense to me. I'd prefer a society where we tried to help out the outliers and criminals so they weren't creating more victims. You might think it sounds soft but hardening criminals doesn't seem like a solution to me.

                      • @Lachy2437: It only costs that much if you want your prisoners to have a nice time. Who says we need to feed and clothe them in there? No one. Bugger them. Time for the hard lessons.

                        • @freakatronic: Prison is definitely not "a nice time", if it was so great why aren't you trying to get you some of that sweet life? They may have broken the law but they are still human and have to be treated as such, we don't run Japanese POW camps and not should we. Also, they are going to be out of prison at some point so part of the goal should be not to break them so much that they can never function in society and end up committing more crimes upon release in a vicious cycle. Rehabilitation reduces victims of crimes, or do you want more victims? It does seem like you want more crime and more victims…weird

                          • @Lachy2437: Bleeding heart.

                            Rehabilitation is only for victims - criminals are the oppressors. The ones who bring violent harm.

                            I've got a great idea though. Seeing as you love criminals and crime so much, you can host them all in your house for rehab.

                            • @freakatronic: I really don't understand the punishment punishment punishment bulldust. I would like bettrr outcomes for everyone, especially reducing the number of victims of crimes. You seem to only care about sitting on your high horse and pretending life is black and white. As for the other bit, if giving a crap about other people makes me a bleeding heart, so be it, that doesn't seem like a negative to me.

                    • @eek: Well lucky we live in civilised countries with human rights isn't it

                • @eek: "If prison conditions were like those in Thailand, Mexico or Colombia, these idiots would think twice before offending" um have you seen the crime rates in those countries?
                  "and prison conditions are far too good" - been to prison? seen the prisons in progressive countries like Amsterdam? seen their crime rates?

              • @Lachy2437: What justification do you have for being uneducated in Australia, with free education provided to all? The only reason to be educated is if you choose to be willfully ignorant.

                The statistic I chose is simply to highlight that things aren't getting better as you claim. The population didn't double in that time. I highly doubt the average length of sentences doubled. The logical conclusion is that we actually have more crime. Got a link to your source for an 80% drop in robbery?

                • @brendanm: You're the definition of wilfully ignorant if you believe that having an education system gives everyone an equal opportunity to be educated. Success in any education system is as much a part of your time outside of school as it is in it.

                  As for my stats I used this report which uses data from the ABS. The logical conclusion from your statistic (not referenced but I'm trusting you on it) is that there are more people in prison, that is all. If you combine it with the numbers I have given you can conclude it isn't because of violent crime these days. Maybe part of it is because people are less likely to be given bail. Or because there are more people on longer sentences from the bad old days of 2000 than there were from 1980? Or because of an increasing population? Or an increase in prosecution of white colour crime? or any multitude of plausible reasons.

                  • @Lachy2437:

                    As for my stats I used this report which uses data from the ABS.

                    Looks like they swapped robbery for rape. That's nice.

                    You also literally proves my point about bogans and drug addicts.

                    • @brendanm: Don't pretend you have a point mate, you have a high horse and a shedload of prejudice, that is all.

                      • @Lachy2437: You said that education is more than just school, it involves the home life as well. Why sort of education are bogans and drug addicts giving the kids? I'll give you a hot tip: it's not a good one, and I've seen it first hand.

                        • @brendanm: I thought we'd already gone through the cyclic nature of things. I didn't realise it was a point you were supposed to be proving? I thought the bigger issue was you wanted to shoot everyone that earnt less than a prescribed amount and I thought that as a society we should instead support people that are struggling.

                          • @Lachy2437: I think you're being overly charitable in describing Brendan's position. I think you had it right when you characterised it as "making desperate criminals more desperate will reduce their criminality".

                            Argues against itself really, that position.

                            • @ozbjunkie: I suspect you've got the wrong person. Where have I stated anything about making desperate criminals more desperate? I said people should be paid to not have children, I made no comment on the treatment of criminals.

        • This is completely incorrect thinking. Punishing them without trying to fix the problem just creates the exact cycle you're trying to prevent. I understand it sounds like you should punish them rather than provide help and support, but all the research and studies shows your approach doesn't work and is wrong.

  • Even police have to call off high speed pursuits when they become dangerous. Basically the crooks get away with it so it doesn't endanger the lives of those involved or innocent bystanders. Do I have sympathy for the thieves? not particularly… at the end of the day you just have to let some things go because the consequences of pursuing it can be much worse - like what this guy is now facing.

    • Innocent bystanders would have been endangered regardless of him chasing them or not.

      Idiot teenage kids are not stealing a high-performance car and to obey road rules nor drive at the speed limit. They steal them to joy ride and show off to their peer as they did in this case.

      They don't even know how to drive and even if no one was chasing they would still end up in a tree or a pole somewhere or much worst killing some other people.

      I am speaking from personal experience as my family car had been stolen by kids in the past and we didn't chase but they still ended up smashing against a tree half a click from my house.

      They end up getting a misdemeanour charge and given a good behaviour bond.

      I'd say it was good that he chases and it ended with no loss of innocent lives, who know what could have happened if he didn't chase.

      • They don't even know how to drive and even if no one was chasing they would still end up in a tree or a pole somewhere or much worst killing some other people.

        Well they probably thought it was gonna be easy like playing gta and high jacking someones car, after stealing their keys of course….or high jacking on the spot with the owner driver… I bet if no one was chasing them, they'd probably get away without a scratch and a free car to boot!

        AHhh yes, good ol grand theft auto….

      • I also have personal experience being victim of a hit and run from a negligent driver. You are right that they would have been a hazard either way, but adding fuel to the fire by giving chase doesn't necessarily help things. I don't have any issues with pursuits that essentially follow at a safe speed / distance but this guy would have saved himself a legal headache had he not chased them even if the end result was the same.

        They never caught the hit and run driver who got me. If I was told it was kids with a stolen car I could just blame the shitty kids. However, if I was told it was kids in a stolen car being chased by someone, it then becomes "well that could have been avoided" - because there's no guarantee I would have come into harm in absence of the chase. Plus there's an extra person to lay that blame onto.

      • So, two inexperienced dangerous drivers on the road is better than one.
        That makes sense.

    • I think that's called being a doormat.

      It's why people with your mentality get taken advantage of regularly.

  • Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of (unfortunate) circumstances. It may have been different if he was acting in self-defence?

    • So it is a bad law, rewarding the criminal and punishing the victim. What seems also off to me is the glorification of the criminals by the news reports that it implies they are 'angels', like all ordinary kids, and facts are they are not and far from that. If there is nothing good to write about these scum bags then just don't write anything. These news report made them the victims. They always have excuses to commit crimes but the real victim has no reason to act accordingly. They just need to stand watching their belongs to be robbed, to be smashed and to be told the indifferent police to seek insurance compensation. Something must be changed, criminals are criminals.

      • How is it rewarding the criminal? Some guy on here tells you a couple of second hand stories about kids getting off and one case that someone gets charged on the public record.

        No car is worth risking innocent people. Victim should have insurance and if you live in a society with millions of people there is a chance you might get robbed. Unless you also want to increase taxes and lower inequality and spend a lot of money on diminishing returns to stop kids from committing crime.

          1. Having insurance is not a free ticket to commit crime, it is irrelevant whether there is insurance there. People have death insurance, does that mean there is no issue someone committing murder just because the victim has an death insurance?

          2. Chances getting rob is not a reason you cannot do anything to prevent and punish robbery.

          3. In your theory, these criminals can only be bribed to not to commit crime by giving them fat welfare cheques?

          • @AllWins:

            1. Crime is a reality of society, insurance and police mitigate the risk.

            2. You absolutely can do stuff to prevent robbery or mitigate, as I said, insurance, but also personal security, cameras. Chasing after the fact is not your job, that's the Police.

            3. A lot of this comes down to education and the household situation and can be generational, not direct money necessarily.

            You get the benefit of living in society, jobs, roads, healthcare, you cannot have it both ways and have none of the downsides.

            It would take more money and good policy, education and support which by the sounds you would see as welfare handouts and not support. So here we are.

            Go live in the outback?

      • The kids are dead.
        What is this reward you speak of?

        • whose fault is that? the guy who went after his own stolen property?

          • @AllWins: The dude is an idiot.

            He broke the law. It doesn't matter if he was just trying to get his stolen property back.
            He endangered innocent people and broke the law. We have police for chasing criminals, not some (profanity).

            You have insurance for a reason.

            • @Nereosis: I think it's a bit early to say he broke the law before the case comes to court. Being charged by the police is not the same thing as being found guilty by a court of law. The charges could be dropped before it goes to trial or he could be found not guilty.

          • @AllWins: So can you beat a thief to death if you caught him stealing?

            • @dealsucker: No, but how is that relevant to the case discussed here?

            • @dealsucker: In a legal sense, obviously not. But if we're talking about how things should be rather than how things are, then that's a different story

            • @dealsucker: going after your stolen property doesn't equal to killing the robber … instead of blaming the victim, maybe as a society we should focus on preventing crime in the first place instead of finding excuses to let them go, or charging the victim. My tax dollar should go to crime prevention not victim punishment. There were even news reports about how there is a go fund me campaign for these robbers and nothing mentioning the suffering of the victim and his family. The kids in the victim's family may think, well, stealing is fine and you get sympathies but defending your property is not, you get arrested. Had any news outlet reaching out to the victim and his family asking their opinion? How are they doing? Simply anti logic.

  • Similar story in Browns Plains, except the protagonist achieved an S+ rank ending.

    • there's a 's' in Brown Stains

      • ye its the deep south

        • have a friend living there, she had her car broken into a few weeks ago by a known local teen trouble maker. took pics to the police who apparently just shrugged their shoulders and said not him again. nothing happened.
          scrolling through fakebook last night her bogan partner has a video of himself catching the kid in the local shopping centre and flogging him

          • @myusername: pros and cons of living in a bad suburb:
            con: your car & house gets broken into
            pro: neglecting lawn & house maintenance actually increases home security
            pro: the crooks lives within walking distance from where you are, DIY bikies, free adrenaline and dopamine rush

            • @payton:

              pro: neglecting lawn & house maintenance actually increases home security

              How? Why?

              I don't get why not mowing grass would stop break-ins???

              • +3 votes

                @nilesstandish: A shitty looking house is probably not worth breaking into?

                • @silo: That's my strategy! My rented apartment is so run-down looking and foreboding that it looks more like where the criminals live, rather than where they would target.

              • @nilesstandish: I knew a guy who lived 100m from housing commission high-rise blocks

                from the street his house looked run-down and ramshackle - you'd think whoever lived there was a derelict

                inside the house was luxurious with expensive museum pieces and riches

                when I asked why the outside looked so bad, he told me 'so no-one wants to break in !'

                • @Hangryuman: Oh!

                  I get it now, never came to mind, thanks for the education!

                • @Hangryuman: My mates GF parents, didn't mow their lawn, yeah they got broken into

                  pro: neglecting lawn & house maintenance actually increases home security

                  This is a really old trope, neglected property = likely to be abandoned. Low risk

                  its the same reason old cars are more likely to be broken into, less security

                  Having said that, burglary statistics have dropped dramatically over the last 20 years

    • Haha love how the kids put on the hazards in the stolen car afterward being rammed 😂 What a great ending lol

      • I haven't viewed the article but FYI some modern cars will automatically put on hazard lights after a crash.

    • OH, I thought S+ ranked meant they actually pulled it off and even showed off too in the car they stole without fail!

  • "Why is the police so lenient with Kids and Cars ?"
    Police will break off a chase if its getting too dangerous. They are trained and also have support to catch thieves anyway, eg radio, helicopters, plate recognition tech etc…

    Do this yourself , either you and/or thieves can kill innocent people that have nothing to do with it in a high speed accident. Its incredibly stupid to take law into your hands, let alone for a car that you should have insurance on anyway.

    Life vs property, pretty clear

    • Beat me to it, oh well can't remove my comment lol

    • People like to think that all these hi-tech resources actually "catch" crooks. A radio is only any good to tell someone on the ground where he is, what he's doing, so some cop can actually put hands on him. A helicopter has never in the history of the world plucked an offender up off the ground, at best they use their radio after spotting him so that the first principle can be applied. Plate recognition is useless in these circumstances. The owner already knows what his own number is and where it is garaged. Good crooks won't use their own number plate anyway. NPR is only good for nabbing Joe Public who is doing a few km over the limit or forgot to pay their rego.

      I'd prefer someone try to stop these unskilled drivers that are already driving dangerously from killing an innocent person. There is a risk in doing this but I believe it is less than the guaranteed death at the end if they are allowed to continue on their way unchallenged. I note that the owner did not crash, yet his driving is being classed as dangerous. Stupidity.

      • There is a MUCH greater chance of a joyride in a stolen car ending in tragedy, for themselves or others, if they are being chased. How do you suppose the chaser was planning on stopping the kids? Pretty much exactly as it ended? As for your first bit about catching them, it IS less important than the value of human life, hence police calling off high speed chases as well.

        • It just shows people have zero confidence the police can be bothered to arrest these real crooks.

          Well the dumbs kids got more than they bargained for, no complaints there.

          As with the kid's mum, looks like she did fk all to teach these dumb kids on how to be normal human being. She only has herself to blame.

      • Vic Pol rotary wing air support has landed, apprehended wrong doers - albeit in remote locations.
        Rare, but does happen.
        Number Plate recognition can flag stolen plates.

        • Landing = people on the ground needing to go hands-on to take the person into custody. It's academic what mode of transport they took to get there. My point was the helicopter isn't some magic device that catches crooks and takes them into custody.

          How does a flagged "stolen plate" help identify the offender?

      • Dangerous driving is not when you crash; it's when you drive dangerously…
        This is an absolutely ridiculous comment.

        • Why don't you share with us what elements of danger the owner actually did, seeing as you know enough to dismiss other points of view? What is he doing wrong if he, as a licenced driver in another registered car, is following behind his stolen property in order to relay to police where the car is? If it got to dangerous speeds, it would be as a result of the unskilled drivers in the lead car already driving at dangerous speeds. The solution of "just let him go" is allowing an unhindered danger to run riot and endanger everyone with their inexperience and outrageous speed, with nobody trying to intervene. He's already at risk of cleaning up innocent road users at the next intersection.

    • They don't break off chases. Star Force is called in and they will ram and kill the driver. Seen it with my own eyes. Then they went round threatening the residents in the street to keep their mouths shut.

    • I love this insurance line - "so it's insured who cares". So why should the owner have to suffer paying the excess, be without a car for a period of time, take time off work to run around to run around, and have their future premiums go up because some sorry excuse for a human wanted to break into their car?