So this guy in Glendale hits this girl in the street with his 2003 Benz and kills her, he didnt stop, he didnt even slow down.
The cops find out who it is, the Benz has a locator in it, the cops ask Benz to locate the car, they tell them to pound sand!!!!! They wouldnt do it without a court order, which the cops get and Benz tells them to pound sand again.
I wonder how many posts its gonna take for someone to defend Mercedes Benz???
This is from the Daily News...
As of late Friday afternoon, the Mercedes-Benz of America refused to assist in locating the car that was involved, according to John Balian of the Glendale Police Department. Balian said the New Jersey-based firm originally told police to obtain a court order, which they did, but officials with the company have refused to acknowledge the court order.
Police told the firm that they were concerned that the Mercedes-Benz might be dumped before they can locate its owner. Balian said police are baffled at the refusal of the firm to acknowledge the court order, and pointed out to the firm that "this is a hit-and-run homicide case, not a shoplifting case."
Balian said that it was pointed out to the firm that time is of the essence in this case, to which the firm's representative said it would fight the order and it would take months before they would be forced to comply with an order. No reason for the company's refusal to help in finding the driver was offered, he said.
I saw this the other day one the news. The car would need teleaid or GPS in order to be located. From the video I saw it looked like the grill of an amg series S-class. iirc, the 03 amg series all had GPS and teleaid standard. Then again the car could have an aftermarket grill insert leaving potential for no teleaid present. Then again, maybe it's Diamlers idea of telling america "we already showed you what we think of Chrysler, how many other ways can we flip you the bird!".
This is purely ridicules.
There must be more to the story?
As a side thought...
I agree,
Their commitment to Chrysler was a "as long as were doing well" as soon as sales slowed they jumped. Nice relationship commitment.
I did the MBZ thing once. The dealerships try hard but the company it's self is crap. I had a car with tons of issues and they stepped up to nothing. Sure wished I had leased that car.
I wonder how many posts its gonna take for someone to defend Mercedes Benz???
I guess it will be three, and what a tough spot for MB to be in.
I have long felt that tracking devices (like OnStar) had potential to be used for what they weren't intended.
It is only a matter of time...OBD II has already been abused.
If the police know what MB it is, then don't they also know who owns it? Why can't they showup on the guy's doorstep?
There has to be more to this story.
Brian
The other side of the story is the MB does not want its owners/buyers to think that big brother can spy on them using their cars. If 5% of their buyers think that, then they could take a significant hit in sales, and I'l bet a lot more than 5% will think that.
I think that they should have helped, but just kept it on the down-low. Something like, "we're not going to help you due to privacy concerns, but since I got you on the phone, one of our employees saw some trash in the driveway around XXXX and ZZZZ."
Exactly.
As unfortunate as it is.
The other side of the story is the MB does not want its owners/buyers to think that big brother can spy on them using their cars. If 5% of their buyers think that, then they could take a significant hit in sales, and I'l bet a lot more than 5% will think that.
I think that they should have helped, but just kept it on the down-low. Something like, "we're not going to help you due to privacy concerns, but since I got you on the phone, one of our employees saw some trash in the driveway around XXXX and ZZZZ."
Having tracked many vehicles in my LE days, this is the first time that I have heard of a company refusing to locate a vehicle.
Generally if the vehicle is NOT reported stolen, they require a court order.
Note: many companies, including ONSTAR, will locate a vehicle if it is reported stolen by the owner, and LOJAC will work closely with LE to locate the vehicle as they have agents that are retired LE throughout the country.
The simple way is the obtain a search warrant, as Glendale PD did. From what I read they obtained two search warrants to adheare to some language that MB wanted in the document. When obtaining the courst document detectives often end up dealing with the legal side of the company, and MB HQ is in New Jersey.
This is really bad press for MB. Understand that any company has the right to refuse such an order but they would normally have an attorney appear in the specific judges court soon after being served with the order to contest the order. But like I said, this is almost unheard of.
I suspect that this will be resolved in a few days, perhaps a few days too late.
Having tracked many vehicles in my LE days, this is the first time that I have heard of a company refusing to locate a vehicle.
Generally if the vehicle is NOT reported stolen, they require a court order.
Note: many companies, including ONSTAR, will locate a vehicle if it is reported stolen by the owner, and LOJAC will work closely with LE to locate the vehicle as they have agents that are retired LE throughout the country.
The simple way is the obtain a search warrant, as Glendale PD did. From what I read they obtained two search warrants to adheare to some language that MB wanted in the document. When obtaining the courst document detectives often end up dealing with the legal side of the company, and MB HQ is in New Jersey.
This is really bad press for MB. Understand that any company has the right to refuse such an order but they would normally have an attorney appear in the specific judges court soon after being served with the order to contest the order. But like I said, this is almost unheard of.
I suspect that this will be resolved in a few days, perhaps a few days too late.
I had a conversation about "big brother" with the developer of lojack a few years ago. I remember him saying he had some tie with Huntington PD when he was first testing. The intention of lojack right out of the box was to work directly with PD's to track vehicles. With that being said, it's weird Mercedes is resistant to this because I have lojack on my benz. If the benz in question doesn't have lojack and just teleaid then that is a service provided by mercedes directly resulting in the privacy theory already discussed by gopher.
It could also be that the owner has already been questioned. Since this happened late at night the owner could have said "that car was stolen while I was sleeping and I don't know where it is".
Or the original owner could have sold the vehicle and the new owner did not update their records. Perhaps mercedes is trying to keep them from questioning someone who had nothing to do with this.
The last thing anyone would want to for someone to lieabout ownership or the theft of a car with LE knowledge. This would taint the investigation, and court orders are not difficult to obtain.
Yes, there's got to be another side to this story, but as it stands, this is a real black eye for MB. I have to hide and lock up my new CLS 550 or Nancy will sell it cheap. She's a real law and order nut...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote