- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jameis Winston admits to NCAA violation on Draft Academy (national TV)
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:43 am to lsupride87
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:43 am to lsupride87
quote:All it takes is that the person knew that the stuff was stolen.
Meaning it was someone they knew and they had setup this system while knowing it was illegal.
In this scenario, if JW knew that the employee didn't have the authority to give the food away, they can go after him.
But I don't care enough to argue the point.
This post was edited on 4/22/15 at 9:45 am
1
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:43 am to lsupride87
quote:
If someone in wal mart told you that you could have the Xbox for free, and then plain as day you walked out with it, and then the cops grabbed you, 100% hey wouldn't charge you with stealing. They would take possession of the goods but you yourself are not going to be charged with stealing
but if its found that you made a deal with an employee that didnt have authority to do this - you might end up in trouble. heck, isnt that the same as the warrick incident at FSU with hundreds of dollars in clothes being rung up for $20? the employee and the player both got hit.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:43 am to harry coleman beast
quote:
Any chance he owns up to the rapes he committed?
You were there? And you didn't come forward as a material witness? You're an accessory to rape, son.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:45 am to lsupride87
quote:
Yes, if the person was in on it. Meaning it was someone they knew and they had setup this system while knowing it was illegal.
Possession of stolen goods is a crime also.
Ignorance is a poor defense to any crime
Also even if your way of thinking was correct, his previous interaction with the employee is enough to constitute prior knowledge of the employee and the employee telling him he can have shite for free is common sense enough to know it was illegal
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:45 am to boom roasted
quote:Correct. If I am offered free goods by a random employee at a store how do I know it is stolen? I dont think the law/owner would touch that because that is impossible to prove. Now if you know the employee that becomes different because the purden of proof would be alot easier
All it takes is that the person knew that the stuff was stolen.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:45 am to NoSaint
quote:I have said that from the beginning
but if its found that you made a deal with an employee that didnt have authority to do this - you might end up in trouble.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:46 am to lsupride87
quote:
Correct. If I am offered free goods by a random employee at a store how do I know it is stolen?
It does not matter.
Ignorance is not a defense.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:47 am to lsupride87
It all depends on the circumstances. At least in LA, the law doesn't require knowledge.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:49 am to wildtigercat93
quote:Huh?
It does not matter.
Ignorance is not a defense.
The whole entire issue is whether or not you knew the item was stolen. The whole burden of proof is whether or not you knewPosted on 4/22/15 at 9:50 am to boom roasted
quote:Which I feel like I have portrayed in my post. I have said he may or may not have stolen depended on what he did. I am simply trying to point out that it is not 100% that he committed theft
It all depends on the circumstances
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:51 am to lsupride87
I know. The post was addressing the knowledge aspect of the crime.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:53 am to lsupride87
quote:
Huh? The whole entire issue is whether or not you knew the item was stolen. The whole burden of proof is whether or not you knew
Not in the eyes of the law.
If what you were saying were right, 90 percent of the methheads on COPS would never get arrested.
You possess a stolen car, item, or whatever, it's against the law. Does not matter whether you knew or not
Have sex with an underage girl, it's a crime. It does not matter whether you knew she was underage or not
You break a traffic rule and it is a violation. Even If you never heard of that rule, it is still a violation.
Debate all you want on how fair that may or may not be, but that's how it works.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:54 am to wildtigercat93
quote:Yes it does.
Does not matter whether you knew or not
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:55 am to boom roasted
In which circumstance are you speaking?
Unless you were duped into such an event, it is the case.
Unless you were duped into such an event, it is the case.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:55 am to boom roasted
quote:Agreed. The examples he used have no relation here. I would say this falls into a type of contract law and knowledge would be required correct?
Yes it does.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 9:56 am to wildtigercat93
quote:In which circumstances does knowledge of whether it's a stolen item matter? Every single one. It's written into the law.
In which circumstance are you speaking?
Posted on 4/22/15 at 10:00 am to boom roasted
quote:
In which circumstances does knowledge of whether it's a stolen item matter? Every single one. It's written into the law.
Knowledge is certainly not relevant in my last two examples. I know those for a fact.
The first has more grey area but knowledge is still pretty irrelevant.
You can't just drive around in a car that your bud gave to you without telling you where he got it from. If it's stolen, you are in the hook for it. You've never heard of possession of stolen goods? It's not called knowledge of possession of stolen goods for a reason
Posted on 4/22/15 at 10:00 am to wildtigercat93
quote:But you are bringing up issues that deal with completely different areas of the law
Knowledge is certainly not relevant in my last two examples. I know those for a fact.
Posted on 4/22/15 at 10:02 am to wildtigercat93
quote:
It's not called knowledge of possession of stolen goods for a reason
Receipt of stolen property is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315, defined as knowingly receiving, concealing, or disposing of stolen property with a value of at least $5,000 that also constitutes interstate commerce (i.e., has been transported across state lines).
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven:
The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.
The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.
The items had a value in excess of $5,000.
The person acted knowingly and willfully.
This post was edited on 4/22/15 at 10:02 am
Posted on 4/22/15 at 10:02 am to wildtigercat93
quote:Not even worth arguing with you. At least look up the statute before you act like you know what you're talking about.
Knowledge is certainly not relevant in my last two examples. I know those for a fact.
The first has more grey area but knowledge is still pretty irrelevant.
You can't just drive around in a car that your bud gave to you without telling you where he got it from. If it's stolen, you are in the hook for it. You've never heard of possession of stolen goods? It's not called knowledge of possession of stolen goods for a reason
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News