Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" wrote in
>>>> "Larry" wrote
>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
>>>>>>> crime if the recipient knows it is stolen. Otherwise, they're
>>>>>>> just another victim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you lie ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. You want to play this game again? OK, I will. What about
>>>>> that statement is a lie? And provide citations to sources, for a
>>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> You're the lying jackass who made the preposterous assertion that
>>>> "receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a crime
>>>> if the recipient knows it is stolen", so it's up to YOU to provide
>>>> citations to support yet another one of your absurdities.
>>>
>>> New York has five degrees of possession of stolen property,
>>> depending on what the property is and its value. In descending
>>> order, from the Penal Code: 165.40, 165.45, 165.50, 165.52, and
>>> 165.54. They all start with the preamble:
>>>
>>>
>>> emphasis="mine"> A person is guilty of criminal possession of
>>> stolen property ... when he *knowingly* possesses stolen property,
>>> with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner
>>> thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that ...
>>
>> ... Jew York isn't the center of the judicial universe ... never was,
>> never will be.
>
> Thanks for bringing Jews into this, for some reason.
>
> I quoted New York *state* statutes. Not that many Jews upstate.
>
>> Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.
>>
>> Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless
>> satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person
>> in possession of the property knew or should have known that the
>> property had been stolen.
>
> This is little different from New York State law. If you didn't know
> it was stolen, then you may have the burden of proving that if you're
> indicted, or you risk having the jury act on an allowed inference.
> But that doesn't change the law.
Nor does it change the fact that Lyin' Larry's absurd assertion
is, as you have shown, demonstrably false.
Lyin' Larry, the legal imbecile said:
"Plus, receiving stolen money (or property of any kind) is only a
crime if the recipient knows it is stolen"
Florida statute (among others) criminalizes the possession/receipt
of stolen property even if the person did not know it was stolen.
Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat.
Proof of possession of recently stolen property, unless
satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in
possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been
stolen.
Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(3), Fla. Stat.
Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price
substantially below the fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained,
gives rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew
or should have known that the property had been stolen.
Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(4), Fla. Stat.
Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in
property, out of the regular course of business or without the usual indicia of
ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, gives
rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property knew or
should have known that it had been stolen.
Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(5), Fla. Stat.
Proof that a dealer who regularly deals in used property possesses
stolen property, upon which a name and phone number of a person other than the
offeror of the property are conspicuously displayed, gives rise to an inference
that the dealer possessing the property knew or should have known that the
property was stolen.
Inferences. Give if applicable. § 812.022(6), Fla. Stat.
Proof that a person was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle and that the
ignition mechanism of the motor vehicle had been bypassed or the steering wheel
locking mechanism had been broken or bypassed, unless satisfactorily explained,
gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the stolen motor
vehicle knew or should have known that the motor vehicle had been stolen.
|