Posted on 11/24/2012 7:57:23 PM PST by Arthurio
“Tell me why I was attacked.”
-
I haven’t a clue but when it happens to me I give it a couple of posts and drop it. Not worth the time going further.
.
Well that’s your choice isn’t it?
“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.
More Festivus related hi-jinks!
Was there something unlawful about the customer's possession of the item inside the store?
Lawful possession and ownership are not the same thing.
The customer had lawful possession. Title (ownership) is what had not yet transferred out of the store until the item is paid for.
Was there something unlawful about the customer’s possession of the item inside the store?
Now, with your contorted view of things, answer the question:
When did that item become her personal property? Before she actually made a contract of sale with the retailer by exchanging something of value (money) for the property? Or, when it was unpaid for and taken off the shelf within the physical confines of the store’s facility? If she decided not to pay for it and simply abandoned it in the basket within the store, was it still her personal property?
Come on! Use some common sense.
Sigh. Please re-read my original post.
"Personal Property" in the law has absolutely nothing to do with ownership.
The laptop was "personal property" from the moment it was created, because personal property, in the law, means things that are tangible and not fixed to real property. Goods such as a laptop are considered personal property whether they are owned by an individual, corporation or other entity.
You are trying to wedge the colloquial use of the term "personal property" into the legal definition.
If I lend you my lawnmower, and someone pulls a gun on you and takes it from you, does it mean that person did not commit a robbery because you were not the owner of the lawnmower?
Of course a robbery is committed in that instance. Any other result would be absurd. The law does not anticipate that the crook would inquire about ownership before they take it in order to be convicted of the crime.
To answer your question: the store retained ownership of the item until it was paid for. The computer was at all times legally personal property, whether she paid for it or abandoned it in the cart.
Perhaps it will be clearer if I substitute the legal definition for the term "personal property." When the suspect took a "tangible and movable item" from the customer's hands using force a robbery was committed.
When the suspect took a “tangible and movable item” from the customer’s hands using force a robbery was committed.
After all, it’s robbery and Texas law states you can take any action, up to and including shooting them, to recover your stolen property in an active pursuit.
Thanks for the clarification. I sure as hell would not want you as my lawyer.
You kinda skipped the whole part in the Texas statute that requires a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. (section 9.42(2))
Plus that part about a reasonable belief that the property cannot be recovered by any other means could prove problematical when dealing with fungible goods such as potatoes.
I would hate to have you as a client, as I doubt you are going to find a jury to agree that shooting someone for robbing a potato from you in the store is reasonable.
This has gone far afield from my original point, which was the legal definition of personal property.
You kinda skipped the whole part in the Texas statute that requires a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. (section 9.42(2))
You failed to address the part about the pursuit and means to stop the theft and pursuit of said criminal by use of deadly force to recover your “personal property” whether upon your own property or property you are charged to protect.
I won’t go on and on but our initial conflict was that the customer was ASSAULTED and the crime was that...not robbery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.