[singleshot_]

He was talking about civil liability. The concept you’ve tripped over here is called intervening superseding causes and the criminal only destroys the tortfeasor’s liability if his intervening criminal cause is unforeseeable.

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.

[whatwhaaaaat]

What about door locks? Or the ignition that had to be ripped out to use the usb stick trick? Does everyone have to use a club or hidden kill switch to not have them blamed.

I’d be willing to guess you won’t use this word salad when describing sexual crimes.

[ethbr1]

> Or the ignition that had to be ripped out to use the usb stick trick?

If by "ripped out," you mean depressing a tab and then pulling it out.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bTeVgfPM0Xw&t=357s

[singleshot_]

Literacy is important. I’m arguing that the criminal’s bad act does not necessarily break the chain of causation that makes Kia liable. You’re projecting that I’m blaming the consumer.