Anything political doesn't have to be only this reason or only that reason. "Both" is an option too.
- Kia fucked up, to make more $
- Some cities have ineffective enforcementTo be specific, I don't think the cities are suing over the car thefts. If I understand correctly, they're suing because the availability of easily hacked Kia cars enabled a wave of other crimes, because the criminals knew they had easy access to a getaway vehicle that couldn't be traced back to them.
WHAT?
I don’t have my wallet on a chain, do I have some responsibility if I get pickpocketed?
These criminals are breaking the law, it is ENTIRELY their fault. Any other interpretation has way, way too many logic holes and strange consequences that says it’s our fault when a criminal willingly breaks the law.
If your car gets stolen, that's your problem.
If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem. (As now police forces have to deal with criminals trivially obtaining getaway cars)
So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued for the cost of the additional police resources required.
I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.
The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.
But anyway, going with what you said...
> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued
Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.
It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.
What I'm talking about is how companies should bear liability for the social consequences of their choices.
Is there a more credible source?
Both Kia and the thieves can be in the wrong. Trying to break it down to one cause is never going to work.
Some car will always be the easiest to steal. People should always take reasonable precautions. But crime is still crime; if someone leaves their car running with the door unlocked as they run into the store and it gets stolen - they made a mistake but the criminal did a crime.
Lots of people get sued for lots of things. Nowhere does it say that suits can succeed only if the defendant is the sole cause of the problem. See: Takata air bags. Huge liability, but in any given incident it wouldn’t be a problem unless someone else caused an accident. Yet Takata does not get to say “or defective product wouldn’t have been a problem if Mr. Doofus hadn’t rear-ended you”
Binary is great for computers, less good in legal thinking.
Here, because the entire purpose of car immobilizers is theft protection, the thief is foreseeable and his crime does not supersede.
I’m a little troubled by your use of the word “asinine” in this context.
I’d be willing to guess you won’t use this word salad when describing sexual crimes.
If by "ripped out," you mean depressing a tab and then pulling it out.
No, but this statement implied Kia wasn't at fault because someone else committed the crime...
> I’ll take victim blaming for $200, Alex. Breaking into a house is easy as a rock through the window but we don’t sue homebuilders for not putting in stronger glass.
So sure, that was the first use of "only cause"; in the same way that "there was 1 light" and "there weren't multiple lights" aren't the same words; but they contain the same information.
I live in a not great part of what's arguably the bluest state in the nation (which is to say this isn't some dumb red state "tough on crime" thing) and I can't imagine someone being able to go around checking windows or car doors for very long without a free ride in a cop car. Windows here are unlatched from May to September. I bet a lot of those houses have Kias in the driveway that they've had no theft problems with as we only have about a dozen car thefts per year here.
Ford Superduties over a huge year range can be stolen much the same way (you also have to punch out a lock before taking a screwdriver to the column) until very recently as PATS was not standard on the higher GVW stuff but those are expensive trucks so shitting on them doesn't scratch the same "validate my $50k purchase of something else" itch that crapping on Kia does.
That being said, how many people buying Kias _knew_ the problem existed? You can't make an educated choice if the information isn't really available to be educated about.