Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 432899" data-attributes="member: 484"><p>you are making my case for me.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>the facts are he did rebut the presumption of theft by stating who he bought it off of and when.</p><p> </p><p> exactly, the adequate facts prove that the underlying conduct was that of purchase of a stolen phone, not actually stealing the phone. but in this case, it has not yet prevailed</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>thank you, you have made my point. i am glad you now understand. possession is enough to charge him with a crime........the crime of possession, not felony theft. and he did produce the person that sold it to him.</p><p> </p><p>so you are right about all off it, with the exception of it being simple theft. they did not charge him with simple theft, it was felony theft. and he is not guilty of theft, he is at most guilty of possession</p><p> </p><p> which he did.....so you are saying that you do not believe him guilty of possession since he did produce and name the person?</p><p> </p><p>d</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 432899, member: 484"] you are making my case for me. the facts are he did rebut the presumption of theft by stating who he bought it off of and when. exactly, the adequate facts prove that the underlying conduct was that of purchase of a stolen phone, not actually stealing the phone. but in this case, it has not yet prevailed thank you, you have made my point. i am glad you now understand. possession is enough to charge him with a crime........the crime of possession, not felony theft. and he did produce the person that sold it to him. so you are right about all off it, with the exception of it being simple theft. they did not charge him with simple theft, it was felony theft. and he is not guilty of theft, he is at most guilty of possession which he did.....so you are saying that you do not believe him guilty of possession since he did produce and name the person? d [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
Top