Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HiTech RedNeck; babygene; Graybeard58

The woman from whom it was taken was in legal possession of it at the time it was taken from her. There is a presumption that she will pay for it and the law has a preference for orderly commerce.


27 posted on 11/25/2012 2:58:02 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: muir_redwoods

And yet shoplifting law generally states that if the customer purposely hides an unpaid-for item from view (though common sense would suggest this probably doesn’t mean burying it under other merchandise in a cart) this constitutes shoplifting. So the person is not free to do whatever he or she wants with it, yet.


29 posted on 11/25/2012 3:14:58 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: muir_redwoods; HiTech RedNeck; babygene; Graybeard58

“The woman from whom it was taken was in legal possession of it at the time it was taken from her. There is a presumption that she will pay for it and the law has a preference for orderly commerce.”

Horse puckey... There is no such presumptions in criminal law. Ownership of property isn’t governed that way. Perhaps civil law could handle it.


63 posted on 11/25/2012 4:16:53 PM PST by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson