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

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Distinction without difference.

Well, Bobby-boy, when you are elected as the one-man legislator for the State of Oregon, you can straighten them boys out, eh? ****, they enact different laws, with different penalties, for what they think are different things. If only they had your wisdom, eh?

You've never shown much ability to make distinctions, so you could probably simplify the Oregon Penal Code immensely, eh?

Statute 1 (the only one): Anything Bobby don't like is illegal and the punishment for violation will be death (perhaps less with sufficient bribe money).

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

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

No court in the country requires proof of that to convict someone of theft. (Your statement would make selling something that was stolen a proof it wasn't theft since by the act of selling it the thief is not keeping it permanently.) Being in possession of an item belonging to another is all that is required to charge someone with theft. One can certainly argue in their defense that they only "borrowed" it but there is not a prosecution requirement to prove intent to keep it permanently.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

Distinction without difference.

Suppose I was out to the Federal Land Preserve and seen a backhoe there, and aint nobody around, to I hop on it, eh? I scoop up a couple of buckets of dirt, just for fun, and go one my way.

Would I be guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle?

Presumably so, yeah.

Would you say I "stole" the backhoe? If you're a straight-up dumb-ass, sure. But otherwise, I mean?

On second thought, never mind. You aint "otherwise."

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No court in the country requires proof of that to convict someone of theft. (Your statement would make selling something that was stolen a proof it wasn't theft since by the act of selling it the thief is not keeping it permanently.)

Looks like you can't read statutes either, eh, Parry?

Quote:

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;

Quote:

Being in possession of an item belonging to another is all that is required to charge someone with theft.

You've said a lot of stupid-ass **** in this joint, Parry, but that one probably ranks in the top 10.

1 Reply

@layman,

In your example you have not taken the vehicle off the owners property. That is quite different from taking it to a place they no longer have access to it.

Read the definition of theft.

If you TAKE property from an owner you are guilty of theft. If someone TAKES a car and drives somewhere with it they have TAKEN the car.

1 Reply

@layman,

If you load the backhoe on it carrier and drive it many miles or so down the highway there would be no question that you had stolen it when the cops pull you over.

It not a big deal as it is stolen property that you have in your possession.

With you lack of understanding of the laws I just can see the troubles you will get yourself in,

1 Reply

@layman,

GOsh.. It seems YOU didn't read the law before you made your statement.... Let me post what YOU said again.

Layman wrote:

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

Nope. Nothing in your statement about selling the property. You only claimed they had to prove HE intended to PERMANENTLY KEEP the property. Sure makes you look like an idiot to claim I didn't read the statute.

1 Reply

@parados,

Heh, more tomfoolery, eh? What do you think "deprive" means, eh, Parry? Is there a difference between "unauthorized use" and "theft?" Sho nuff. Gee, I wonder what that difference could be.......

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

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

Sho nuff.. LAWDY... massa Layman.... Iffen some ole guy sells something he done take then he aint' a gonna be keeping it PERMANENTLY by hisself. But iffen you shukken and jiivin can't be seeing that then I spose it must be cause my ebonics is badden.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If you load the backhoe on it carrier and drive it many miles or so down the highway there would be no question that you had stolen it when the cops pull you over.

With you lack of understanding of the laws I just can see the troubles you will get yourself in,

MY lack of understanding? The law I cited state the elements of the crime. One of those elements involves INTENT. If you can't prove that intent, you can't prove the crime. Driving a backhoe for miles does NOT, by itself, prove the necessary intent.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

In your example you have not taken the vehicle off the owners property. That is quite different from taking it to a place they no longer have access to it.

Read the definition of theft.

If you TAKE property from an owner you are guilty of theft. If someone TAKES a car and drives somewhere with it they have TAKEN the car.

Heh, more of same--you and Bill, eh? Taking is ONE (and only one) element. It alone is not sufficient. What-say YOU read the definition, eh? Aww, nevermind, that wouldn't help anything. You always misconstrue whatever you read to make it say what you want it to say. Just keep on truckin there, eh, Parry?

Quote:

Parry: Being in possession of an item belonging to another is all that is required to charge someone with theft.

I ask my girl to hold my camera for me while I take a piss, out in the woods. THEFT, right there, I tellya! Convict her ass, NOW.

2 Replies

@layman,

Layman wrote:

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

Hmm.... what exactly did I miss in your statement? Oh.. NOTHING because you didn't say anything about selling to someone else. You said... (let me quote it again.)

Layman wrote:

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

I can keep quoting you all day and you statement still won't say anything other than what it says.

But perhaps you need to read the rest of the Oregon statutes before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Quote:

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;

A person commits theft when with intent to appropriate property they appropriate such property from an owner. Appropriate means "take for their own use."

So theft occurs under Oregon law when someone intends to take property belonging to someone else for their own use. Did they take the vehicle when they drove it? Did they take it for their own use when they used it to drive themselves somewhere? The answer to both would be yes. So under Oregon law they could be charged with theft.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

I apologize for straying off the subject of this topic, but I came across an article last night concerning William Buckley's National Review that is pertinent to several recent posts in this topic.

Yes, Buckley was a highly educated gentleman who had a lot of class. (He even had liberal friends! His eulogy at the funeral of the murdered Allard Lowenstein, who was a leading liberal Democratic politician during the Vietnam War, practically brought tears to my eyes.)

But we need to remember that along with most other conservatives, he defended Jim Crow and attacked the civil rights movement. Conservatives in that time typically disregarded black Americans who had (or were continuing to experience) racial discrimination, no matter how vicious and cruel, while expressing sympathy for the poor, put-upon segregationists. Buckley even supported forced busing to maintain racial segregation in the schools! Martin Luther King Jr. was viciously attacked by conservatives in the media from the very beginning; yet up to that point in time, the Ku Klux Klan and other white segregationists had been allowed to brutalize and murder black Americans for generations.

Here's a link to the article I've referenced:

http://themoderatevoice.com/recall-the-words-of-the-national-review/

It contains a lengthy quotation from an article in NR that was published in, I believe, 1965. It serves as a representative example of conservative rhetoric during the 1950s through the 1970s regarding civil rights.

The fact is that the late William Buckley had a dismal record on civil rights as does the conservative movement as a whole.

I happen to be conservative about several leading issues of late, which would cause me to be extremely unpopular with more than a few of the liberal or progressive members of A2K. But I will never become a conservative because of the observation I've just made about the record of their movement. I happened to witness cruel treatment of black individuals by white racist bigots as I was growing up. (Time doesn't permit me to go into detail.) Today leading conservatives aren't willing to deal with their record, but instead will tell outrageous lies about it. The trollish Ann Coulter has actually said that white Southern segregationists were liberal Democrats! I actually watched a video of her making that outrageous statement.

I'm through. I have nothing more to say.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Being in possession of an item belonging to another is all that is required to charge someone with theft.

Let me correct that to what was implied in the context of the comment.

Being in possession of an item belonging to another without the consent of the owner is all that is required to charge someone with theft.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

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:

that's the joy of the "or"

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So under Oregon law they could be charged with theft.

Sure, they "could" be charged with that, even if they could never prove it. Like I said, they could also be "charged" with mass murder.

That aint the issue, though. This guy was NOT charged with theft (whether they "could have," or not). The headlines say he was charged with "stealing" property. He wasn't. The headline is wrong.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Like I said, they could also be "charged" with mass murder.

So under Oregon (or US?) law, anyone can be charged with everything? Interesting!

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

layman wrote:
Like I said, they could also be "charged" with mass murder.

So under Oregon (or US?) law, anyone can be charged with everything? Interesting!

You don't have to prove anything to charge it. You are entitled to an initial hearing to see if probable cause exists. If you find a dead guy, you "can" charge a guy with murder, even if he has an ironclad defense (such as self-defense, alibi, or whatever). You "can" charge him with first degree murder, even if you think it's probably second degree murder, etc.

The point is that there are SEPARATE crimes of theft versus "unauthorized use" and there is a difference. They are not the "same crime." Theft requires an intent to deprive indefinitely or permanently--i.e., no INTENTION to EVER return it. If you intended to return it, then it's not theft.

If I take your car and return it the next day, it's not theft in Oregon. It's unauthorized use of a vehicle. It's like a "trespass" as opposed to taking over your land and throwing you off.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

You don't have to prove anything to charge it.

You do need a statute and some basic evidence to suggest a violation of the statute. Without that the prosecutor may well find they are subject to court sanctions.

Quote:

Theft requires an intent to deprive indefinitely or permanently

Nope. Read the law again. Theft only requires appropriation. Nothing in there about requiring depriving permanently as the ONLY way it is theft. As ehbeth pointed out, "or" has a very real meaning, both in grammar and in law.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You do need a statute and some basic evidence to suggest a violation of the statute. Without that the prosecutor may well find they are subject to court sanctions.

That's what I knew ... before getting the more qualified response above Wink

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know