Baby Missing After Carjacking in Georgetown Early This Evening (30th & M St. NW)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:


2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The mother lied to the police, witnesses on social media reported that the mother was shopping and stopping to smell scents and test out items to purchase. The mother is the main source of culpability.

Agree the moms story doesn't make sense. How can a car with a flat tire be driven miles and miles (by the carjackers)? Why was she seen in La Labo by multiple witnesses if she was just checking the tire? Why did she stop there, instead of pull into a side street or something?

(The only way the moms story makes sense is if she knows she was in the wrong for leaving her baby alone in a running car, and she is desperate to reflect that blame, and that's what she came up with).

It is highly likely this is what happened. Mom panicked realizing that she was going to be in trouble for leaving her baby unattended in an idling car while she shopped and came up with a story. I’m a former prosecutor and while these perps if caught will probably be charged with kidnapping and theft, I would plead them out to theft (this wasn’t a carjacking if she was in the store shopping) and that’s it. I would be more incensed at Mom for being so reckless and endangering her baby, and would have no issue prosecuting her.

Sickening. Pray to god you aren’t in charge of this case then.

[Anonymous]

Someone up thread made a good point that throwing the book at the car jackers because of the unintended kidnapping.

This might strike some fear into car jackers that it isn't the car jacking charge that will get you but something else.

That said - they don't have the car jackers in this case. But maybe the city could push out the charges; push out the outcomes; and make an example of finding them.

The mom is 100% in the wrong here for what she did - no matter what (flat tire; no flat tire; from a foreign country; etc.). I am hoping she's been punished enough not knowing where her infant was for a few hours. But people need to realize its a frickin city. There is no time in my 50 years of living in DC would I ever leave a kid alone in a car, let alone a running car outside of my drive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is all the blame here toward the mom warranted? This is what I read:


2D- Kidnapping / Stolen Auto

The Second District is investigating a Kidnapping and Stolen Auto that occurred on Friday, January 5, 2024, at approximately 1803 hours in the Unit block of 3000 M Street NW.

The complainant was traveling with her four-month-old daughter when a tire deflated on her rental vehicle, a white Jeep. She pulled over in the 3000 block of M St NW and exited the vehicle to ask for help. While outside the Jeep, which she left running, an unknown suspect entered the vehicle and drove away with her four-month-old daughter westbound on M St NW.

At approximately 1853 hours, MPD officers received a call that an unknown individual left the child, still in her car seat, in the 1500 block of 28th St SE with a note stating that the baby had been lost from Georgetown. After knocking on the door, the suspect fled. No lookout is available. The homeowners then took the child to the Sixth District Police substation. There is no available lookout for the complainant's vehicle at this time except that it was a white jeep of an unknown make and model.

If you have any information about this incident, please contact the Command Information Center at 202-727-9099 or send an anonymous text tip 50411

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is wild. Sounds like they knocked on the door and left the baby on the porch.

Glad it ended well. Wonder if the car will be torched on the PG border.

This is a really heartwarming turn of events. They did the right thing.

It's a rollercoaster of a story. They did do the right thing. Still feel horrified by the mom. some witnesses commented that she took her time smelling all the candles at La Labo, ran out clutching one when she saw her car was gone, and then came back in to talk to the Police there.

What witnesses? Do you have a link (l googled but didn’t find). Her behavior sounds too crazy to be true.

NP here. I read that in the comments of the Washingtonian problems insta page. I think it is in this particular post. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1vV3uBRXM6/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The mother lied to the police, witnesses on social media reported that the mother was shopping and stopping to smell scents and test out items to purchase. The mother is the main source of culpability.

Agree the moms story doesn't make sense. How can a car with a flat tire be driven miles and miles (by the carjackers)? Why was she seen in La Labo by multiple witnesses if she was just checking the tire? Why did she stop there, instead of pull into a side street or something?

(The only way the moms story makes sense is if she knows she was in the wrong for leaving her baby alone in a running car, and she is desperate to reflect that blame, and that's what she came up with).

It is highly likely this is what happened. Mom panicked realizing that she was going to be in trouble for leaving her baby unattended in an idling car while she shopped and came up with a story. I’m a former prosecutor and while these perps if caught will probably be charged with kidnapping and theft, I would plead them out to theft (this wasn’t a carjacking if she was in the store shopping) and that’s it. I would be more incensed at Mom for being so reckless and endangering her baby, and would have no issue prosecuting her.

You’d be harsher on the mother than the carjackers/kidnappers/child welfare endangers? They left the 4 month old baby outside in freezing weather. You’re sick. Misogyny against mothers is truly entrenched.

I’m sorry but it’s not a badge of feminism to defend what this mother did. It was criminal. And yes, I actually don’t find someone jumping into a car that someone left running with the keys in the ignition to be that much more problematic than deciding to leave your 4 month old in the car with it running while you go into a perfume store to shop. The car thieves realized the baby was in the car, took it to a home that was well lit with people inside, and knocked on the door so they would come out and see the baby there with a note that the baby was from Georgetown.

You’re disgusting that you think it’s totally fine to steal other peoples’ property. Put aside the kidnapping. F you for thinking you can just take a persons car. You seriously need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I 100% guarantee the kids knocked and ran from a house they know--like an auntie, grandma or neighborhood eminence. With a little shoe leather these kids can be identified. And then sure as sh*t they need to be sentenced and I want to hear what education and life skills they will be offered, and what consequences they will face if they don't take advantage of their 2nd chance. We must change the law on these heinous crimes, the anonymity and clean records of youth in this city, and the revolving door.

I agree they did not drop her with a rando. But, I appreciate that she was left somewhere safe where she would be taken into warmth. Still pondering the paper/pen/note - someone had their school bag. These kids were young.

I agree it's LIKELY (not certain) that the kids know the residents of the house and/or were reasonably certain that someone would answer the door and get the baby promptly. But still--you don't just leave a 4-month old outdoors and hope/expect that someone will get the baby.

And as a parent you don’t just leave your 4 month old alone in the car with it idling while you run into a store and shop. She didn’t display any more care for her own baby than the people that took her car did.

What an absurd statement.

I agree with that PP above. She showed zero regard for the baby. Car thieves did show some interest in baby's safety (if only so they wouldn't get charged with something worse).

Also even if the perfume store is soooo urgent you can pop out the bucket seat and take it with you or put it in a stroller caddy. Or just not do that unnecessary outing at that exact moment. A million options.

I kind of feel for the ppl who stole the idling car and found out, oh no there's a baby in here and had to figure out what to do!

You can’t be a real person.

[Anonymous]

Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love all the truthers on here trying to prove what, that the mom entrapped these fine young men into stealing her car?

The people on this thread defending the thieves are seriously the sickest people I could imagine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will get custody of the child? I assume it will be with city services until the investigation is complete.

Oh FFS. No, city services is not going to hang onto the infant. Mom is not the one who committed a crime here!

Leaving a baby in a car is a crime.

Kidnapping a baby and deliberately leaving them outside to freeze is also a crime.

So is LYING TO THE POLICE.

Two people are to blame for committing crimes: the neglectful, lying mother and the thief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

Isn't there a part of the law that applies to when there are consequences of your illegal act? Ie you rob someone and they end up dead, or you punch someone and they end up dead? Carjacking and car theft are heinous crimes, and chidlren are toted all around in cars. It's entirely predictable that something like this can happen, and children are often in baby seats during car jackings and taken with the car-even if that was not the intent. Just because it is theft is no different to me (maybe the eyes of the law?). What if grandma had been strapped in the back? The theft and carkjackings need to be deterred and the hammer needs to be brought down on anyone apprehended in these activities. These are NOT youthful highjinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love all the truthers on here trying to prove what, that the mom entrapped these fine young men into stealing her car?

The people on this thread defending the thieves are seriously the sickest people I could imagine

+1,000

They are fully the reason are city is spiraling the crime/unlivability toilet.

[Anonymous]

When are we going to start shaming the mother for putting her baby in a snowsuit in a car seat? Because that’s not safe either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

Child endangerment maybe - I’m sure the prosecutors will be creative with other charges.

When the thieves realized the baby was in the car they took action to remove the baby. Returning it to the parent of where they found it would have been better “criminally” instead of leaving on doorstep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is when we need to pull video from every traffic camera, bring in the dogs and helicopters, and find these guys. They need to be put away for a very long time.

I agree - every single f**king twerp that would even consider stealing a car needs to learn a lesson from the example we make here. These people should never see the light of day. Literally can’t imagine if this happened to my baby.

Because you wouldn’t leave your infant in a car and then lie to the police about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, most crimes require intent - mens rea. It isn't kidnapping to steal a car you don't realize has a sleeping baby in the backseat. It just isn't, and it never will be.

Once you see the baby and keep driving, there’s your mens rea. And of course child endangerment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone up thread made a good point that throwing the book at the car jackers because of the unintended kidnapping.

This might strike some fear into car jackers that it isn't the car jacking charge that will get you but something else.

Kids kill people during carjackings and *maybe* get detained until they are 21.

Giving an infant a ride with drop off delivery? The AG will probably represent the kids against the mom for a prevailing DoorDash charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby was left in the car seat on a street in SE but the car is still missing. Curious about where/with who?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Thank goodness she is safe.

I hope these guys get charged with kidnapping and child abuse, and get put away for a long time.

Sounds like these guys are on the loose joyriding in the jeep? At our councilmembers safety walk the USAO representative told us they can't charge carjackers cos when four sets of prints are found they don't know who the jacker was.. COMPLETE IMPUNITY and zero solutions offered.

Hope you told them what utter bullshit this was! 4sets of fingerprints? Arrest and charge them all, unless there is a reason for that fingerprint in the car. Are these people STUPID?

I’m a former prosecutor so I will take a crack at explaining why it is difficult to charge someone with carjacking based on fingerprints alone. When a car gets jacked by say several people who are masked and wearing generic dark clothing, the lookout for the suspects is obviously weak and the victim won’t be able to make an ID of people that did the carjacking. Then say the car is recovered the next day abandoned. The vehicle is printed and you get some hits off the prints. All you can prove is that the people whose prints were in the vehicle had been inside it at some point. You cannot prove that those people jacked the vehicle. You also can’t prove that they went joyriding in it after it was jacked because it was jacked with a key, so there wasn’t anything that would indicate to a passenger in the vehicle that the car was stolen. If, say the jackers weren’t masked and the victims got a look at the suspects, you can definitely put the people whose prints were found inside the car in photo arrays and show them to the victims and maybe they ID the jackers.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. But, seriously?? I’m sorry, but this should be enough(the bolder). What do you mean WHO was doing the carjacking? How is this truly relevant? They obviously did it together. Working as a team. None of them had permission to be inside that car. Your (and the law’s) explanation makes it sound as if part of the theft team was then kidnapped. What nonsense is this!?

Ok, take a deep breath and think rationally. You have someone’s prints in a car that was carjacked. No one can ID any member of the group that was involved in the carjacking. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is whether the persons whose prints were in the car left them after the car was already carjacked and abandoned. The kids leave these cars abandoned after they are carjacked and people “jump in” all the time. Or the person whose prints were in it says omg, my buddy Joey picked me up in the car and we went to McDonalds and I didn’t know it was stolen, he had the keys. I get that it is more likely than not that the person whose prints are in the car was involved in the carjacking, but that is not the standard of proof.

Isn't "jumping in" to a car that doesn't belong to you also a crime? I don't jump into random cars. Do you?

It’s misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle at worst, not carjacking. I’m trying to explain to those that are not familiar with the criminal justice system why fingerprints in a carjacked vehicle doesn’t translate to carjacking charges.

yeah I’m sure it’s uniquely difficult to prove carjacking in DC lol. anyway, with all the security cameras available it’s not hard to correlate a fingerprint with the images.

Of course if there is clear enough camera footage of the perps and their faces are visible or their clothing is unique, that is a different scenario. But if you scroll back up to the beginning of this thread the point I have been addressing is the idea that fingerprints alone is enough to charge and prove carjacking. It is not.