Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

@layman,

Quote:

but his guy wasn't charged with theft. Theft requires that one take something with the "intention of permanently depriving it's rightful owner of it's use."

If someone is found driving my car without my knowledge or permission he or she could not be charge with stealing my car as we must assume that the car would someday be return to me?

I do not think so for some reason.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
but his guy wasn't charged with theft. Theft requires that one take something with the "intention of permanently depriving it's rightful owner of it's use."

If someone is found driving my car without my knowledge or permission he or she could not be charge with stealing my car as we must assume that the car would someday be return to me?

I do not think so for some reason.

Nobody thinks that, so, of course, you shouldn't either.

But you're confusing "must" with "can." If I hold a rental car 1 or 2 days past the time I was supposed to return it, that does not REQUIRE that I be charged with theft, eh?

From my understanding this guy was NOT charged with theft, as the headline announced.

1 Reply

@layman,

If someone break into my home also not with my permission somehow I do not see how that would grant him any right to drive my car off.

I do not also see how taking over federal property for some time would grant a person the same standings as someone who had a rental agreement with the federal government either.

The thinking here seems strange to say the least.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Damn, Bill. How can you figure that out and miss the boat so badly with cop violence and rape????

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If someone break into my home also not with my permission somehow I do not see how that would grant him any right to drive my car off.

I do not also see how taking over federal property for some time would grant a person the same standings as someone who had a rental agreement with the federal government either.

The thinking here seems strange to say the least.

Well, Bill, it seems to me that your thinking, as expressed here, is a little strange. No one said this guy had a "right" to drive the fed's car. He was, after all, charged with a crime. You are arguing against straw men of your own creation.

2 Replies

@layman,

Have you been hanging with ol' hawkeye???? Need to change socks?

0 Replies

@blatham,

Its funny stuff, at least we still get to see it!

0 Replies

@layman,

Suppose I'm walking down the road and come across a guy who has been hit by a car and is dying. I see your car there, with the keys in it, because you parked it there while you went bird-watching. So I put the guy in your car, fire it up, and drive him to the hospital.

Is that THE SAME as this guy? No. But that's not, and never was, the point. If you're going to convict a guy of theft, then you have to prove that he intended to PERMANENTLY keep property belonging to another. If you can't prove that, then don't charge it.

2 Replies

@layman,

Sorry taking a car in order to render life saving aid is not the same as driving a car off someone property for your own benefits and come under the legal theory and defense of necessary.

There is also no duty when you find your car missing to proved that the person who took it was not planning on bringing it back before he can be charge with stealing it.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry taking a car in order to render life saving aid is not the same as driving a car off someone property for your own benefits and come under the legal theory and defense of necessary.

What are you sorry about? That's exactly what I said--they're NOT the same:

Quote:

Is that THE SAME as this guy? No. But that's not, and never was, the point.

You seem incapable of grasping an abstract, yet relatively simple, point, no matter how often, how explicitly, how forcefully, or how succinctly it is presented to you.

Quote:

There is also no duty when you find your car missing to proved that the person who took it was not planning on bringing it back before he can be charge with stealing it.

Who said there was? You don't have a DUTY to prove anything before charging someone. Proof comes at trial. You can "charge" the guy with mass murder, I suppose. Just don't expect to convict him of it without evidence.

Yeah, I realize that people here "convict" others, routinely, without a shred of evidence. That doesn't mean it's good law enforcement practice though. You keep arguing about things that YOU assert, not against what I said.

2 Replies

It's always a little fascinating to see how "headline editors" will exaggerate the actual content of a story for purposes of sensationalism. Perhaps more interesting is the phenomenon that many readers will cite headlines as "fact" without ever reading the article. NBC news did the same thing:

Quote:

Oregon Police Arrest Man Over Federal Vehicles Stolen From Refuge

That's the headline. But what's the story?

Quote:

Medenbach, of Crescent, was arrested on probable cause of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, the Harney County Joint Information Center said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-police-arrest-man-over-federal-vehicles-stolen-refuge-n497636

See the difference, Bill? I suspect not.

0 Replies

@layman,

The man stolen a car and had been charge with stealing a car so once more you seems to have no point at all.

Any other statements in the one news story seems incorrect on it face and this time the headline is correct and not the body of the news story.

1 Reply

The government's property is the people's property. You can't steal from yourself. This is Constitutional reclamation and not merely a right but a duty.

I'm going out this afternoon, for the people, to recover a nuclear submarine. Also, some very expensive bolts.

1 Reply

Quote:

The man stolen a car and had been charge with stealing a car so once more you seems to have no point at all.

Yeah, right, eh, Bill? Maybe these excerpts from Oregon Statutes will help, eh?

Quote:

§ 164.135

Unauthorized use of a vehicle

(1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle when:

(a) The person takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses anothers vehicle, boat or aircraft without consent of the owner

Which is different from:

Quote:

§ 164.015

Theft described

A person commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate property to the person or to a third person, the person:

(1) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof;

This guy was NOT charged under section 164.015 but instead under section 164.135, get it?

It is your habit to always stick by your mistaken claims no matter what evidence is presented to you? I've seen you do this exact same thing before.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Any other statements in the one news story seems incorrect on it face and this time the headline is correct and not the body of the news story.

Still gunna stand by this weak, made-up-on-the-spot, bluff, Bill?

I suspect the answer is "yes."

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Damn. You're not Bill. What have you done with Bill??????

0 Replies

@layman,

You seem to be rationalizing sort of mope.

He did not have the permission of the owner. The owner did not give permission after the fact. He's guilty of some sort of misappropriation. He's been charged and arrested. He was on a Slim Jim and Milwaukee's Finest run.

Bill kicked KICKED your ass in a debate.

Now respond with some fishy sort of fake and offensive Ebonics, sock.

0 Replies

@layman,

Sorry but he stolen a car and as it is a simple and straight forward crime there can be no question of his crime even if the news story was miswritten.

1 Reply

@layman,

Distinction without difference. Pretending you're a lawyer, how was he not arrested in possession of a vehicle that wasn't his without the owner's permission or even knowledge. Specify the charge however you want. But the fact remains: the proximate cause of his arrest was operating and being in possession of a vehicle that was not his.

Are you sure you and Hawkeye don't have some sort of psychic link?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry but he stolen a car and as it is a simple and straight forward crime there can be no question of his crime even if the news story was miswritten.

Heh, exactly what I thought, sho nuff. Can you read statutes as well as headlines? Obviously not, eh?

0 Replies

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know