Re: Is this Liar Named Larry Still a Galactic-class Legal Imbecile?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote
>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>> <quote src="New York States" code="PEN" Article="165"
>>> 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.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> 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.
<snip ratboy's really stupid, off-point attempt at analogy>
Deadrat
The jury gets to decide if the defendant "knew" it was swag, and they may
infer that knowledge from explanations as weak as yours. A jury
following the law can't decide that the defendant didn't know the stuff
was stolen and convict him anyway.
Which is what Larry was saying.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Time for your nap or you'll get cranky.
<snip>
> <snip ratboy's really stupid, off-point attempt at analogy>
Let me guess. You didn't do too well on the analogy part of those
standardized tests they gave you in grade school.
Don't blame me.
_ Prof. Jonez _
The defendant doesn't have to know it was stolen. Do pay attention
moron... which would be easier to do if you'd get your nose out of
Lyin' Larry's stinky ass ...
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
And the defendant doesn't have to have killed anyone for him to be
wrongly convicted of murder. That doesn't mean that the statute doesn't
require responsibility for the death of someone.
Stop (deliberately) confusing what a statute says with what a jury finds.
> which would be easier to do if you'd get your nose out of
> Lyin' Larry's stinky ass ...
What's with the scatology? Are you trying to tell us that your nappy
needs changing? Is that why you're so cranky?
There, there.
_ Prof. Jonez _
<snip>
Poor pathetic ratzo, got caught on the lyin' Larry side of reality,
doesn't have the common sense to abandon his loser assertion.
Deadrat
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote
Wassa matta ratboy? You jumped into Lyin' Larry's cesspool, now
you got lyin' Larry's poo all over you.
Peeeeee yeeeeeew! You stink, ratzo.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <694grfF...@mid.individual.net>,
> ignore the truth, and never admit how foolish he looks, even when it
> is apparent to everyone else.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the moron
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
Larry the Imbecile also claims that
0.625 grams is "far more than a gram"
and that a handcuffed man will "fall faster"
when pushed off a cliff.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
Has the nanny dropped you on your head again? Because I'm starting to
worry that that your cute anti-social behavior is a sign of a learning
disability.