This man was clearly trying to steal a car. Why was he released?

yep, right, if he was black he wouldn't be released

"This man was clearly trying to steal a car. Why was he released?"

I don't now about you, but if I was trying to steal a car, I don't think I would do it from the passenger seat. He was probably just riffling the car for change and valuables.

I did not see in the article that he had been released. Where did it say that? I see the police issued a press release, but that is not the same thing.

"yep, right, if he was black he wouldn't be released"

I find that to be offensive, an insult to the police and our society.

"...was cited for tampering with a vehicle and released at the scene..."

I agree that he should not have been released. Even if a car is unlocked, isn't it illegal to enter it if it's not yours, without permission?

I guess we've been conditioned to suspect the worst of people. He could have been just looking for a comfortable place to take a nap, and figured it was the car of an employee who wouldn't be returning for awhile. The owner left it unlocked, which might be misconstrued as an invitation. The article is ambiguous about whether the guy was arrested (as in booked) or released at the scene. If he had identification and there were no wants or warrants or burglary tools or stolen property on him then I think it's usual to cite and release. Shoplifters are cited and released regularly. Maybe a law enforcement person here can enlighten us.

This guy was RELEASED?!?

He should have spent some time in the local jail!!!

Unbelievable.

I agree it would be better if he was not released, but I think that he didn't do anything illegal to charge him with. (But I do think it should be illegal to enter someone elses unlocked property.)

I believe if the car had been locked, then it would have been a crime. Please correct me if I am wrong.