It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Child Arrested, Charged for opening Xmas present early!!

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Nonsense. Was LARCENY the INTENT of the kid? If not then there was no larceny. Larceny is when you INTENTIONALLY steal something. You KNOW it is not yours, yet you take it anyway. The present was HIS, given to him by his Mom. Had he not opened it, it would have remained his until he did open it.


Until something is given to you it is not yours. My grandmother left me a rather nice letter opener in her will, it was intended for me but surely didn't belong to me until she died. Someone else has already illustrated this point pretty well to you, but you seem stuck on the fact that this kid was accessing his own property.

Fact is, the thing wasn't bought with his money, it doesnt even belong to him legally even after it's been given to him. It was bought with his mom's cash and she probably has the reciept. Even after the kid has played with the game system for 1 year it pretty much legally still belongs to his mother.

Still this is a messy area, getting the law involved to deal with a moral issue is kinda heavy handed. It would be nice to see if the kid's brush with the law has reformed his character a bit. I think I would respond a bit better to a dressing down from a cop than listen to some pencil pusher from social services.

And btw sometimes I think social services are obligated to meet a quota of how many children they can separate from their families in a year or something. The amount of kids you hear about who get abused to death, and the amount of kids which are taken from capable parents in my country is something that is pretty well documented.




posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by unnamedninja

Nonsense. Was LARCENY the INTENT of the kid? If not then there was no larceny. Larceny is when you INTENTIONALLY steal something. You KNOW it is not yours, yet you take it anyway. The present was HIS, given to him by his Mom. Had he not opened it, it would have remained his until he did open it.


Until something is given to you it is not yours. My grandmother left me a rather nice letter opener in her will, it was intended for me but surely didn't belong to me until she died. Someone else has already illustrated this point pretty well to you, but you seem stuck on the fact that this kid was accessing his own property.

Fact is, the thing wasn't bought with his money, it doesnt even belong to him legally even after it's been given to him. It was bought with his mom's cash and she probably has the reciept. Even after the kid has played with the game system for 1 year it pretty much legally still belongs to his mother.

Still this is a messy area, getting the law involved to deal with a moral issue is kinda heavy handed. It would be nice to see if the kid's brush with the law has reformed his character a bit. I think I would respond a bit better to a dressing down from a cop than listen to some pencil pusher from social services.

And btw sometimes I think social services are obligated to meet a quota of how many children they can separate from their families in a year or something. The amount of kids you hear about who get abused to death, and the amount of kids which are taken from capable parents in my country is something that is pretty well documented.


The present WAS given to the kid. So please stop with the ' it wasn't his ' nonsense. It had his name on it, and she gave it to him. All he did was disobey an order from his MOM, NOT a LAW from the statutes!! You MUST accept this or risk being shallow, it is a fact.

The part about your grandmother makes no sense: totally different, not a good example at all: If your grandmother had died and you took the object before the attorney had a chance to give it to you, it might have been rude or whatever, but as her INTENT was to give it to you, WHEN you actually take delivery is NOT the big issue, legally speaking. No one could have called the cop's and claimed that you stole it merely for taking possession earlier than the giver wished would occur. I think you do not have much experience with the law: INTENT is the heart of any act.

Social services does NOT have any quotas: That is ridiculous. Normally they are overwhelmed: Maybe you are as uniformed about the current state of social services as you are about the foundations of the law..hmmm. I will agree with you that many horrible things happen to kids due to SS inadequecies.

Cops' are NOT supposed to be used to ' dress down
' their employers, the citizens. They are SERVANTS. It is NOT a part of their job descriptions, and they have no authority, to threaten, advise, bluster, intimidate or counsel: They are supposed to enforce the LAWS in a professional manner, and that does NOT include taking over from the agencies already there and equipped to handle the situation best. it is so simple. The right agency, or the wrong one.

Since when have cop's , of all people, the biggest liars and bullies alive, the guys who spend all day asking citizens to give up their Constitutional rights so they can make easy busts, since when are they qualified to impartially intervene in complex falilial situations, where time is needed to work out the issues and such: Cop's only take enough time to decide to arrest or not. That is all they do. Since that is a fact, obviously cop's are NOT equipped to deal with those issues, and when they do THIS is what we see: 12 year old kids arrested for opening their own present early.

If I giove you a present and you put it under your tree, and I tell you not to open it it the 25th, and you ignore me and open it Xmas eve as the one you always do..then I should have you arrested? Hmmm? Does that make any sense? of course not: You may disappoint me, but that is NOT against the law!!! The kid disappointed his Mom, but he didn't break the law. NO INTENT, no law broken. Done deal. Anything else is undermining the very system that works best when done right.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I missed one:

When a gift is given voluntarily, it is assumed that it is a permanent transfer of property: you are wrong again: The Mom does NOT legally own what she gives away merely because she bought it or because she retains a receipt. The ownsership of an item is determined by the legal chain of custody: From the store to the Mom, From the Mom to the kid. The kid opened it early, disbeying an ' order ' from a Mom..NOT law from a lawbook..get it now? OK so far. Now get this: If no LAW is broken, then there should be NO CHARGES..understand? See how easy it is to think logically?

Since there WERE charges, and those charges WILL be dismissed the first time it gets before a court, after wasting money all the way around, that means that an injustice was done: Any time that the law is used improperly, it is an injustice, for someone. That is wrong, and you cannot justify it by hoping that doing all the wrong things may somehow turn out to end up helpful..maybe..if..sorry, all that is far too iffy and nebulous to be abusing the law. No way out of this one, you cannot justify it legally or in any other way.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
ok this is just freakin stupid...grow up...it wasnt his till its givin to him...i can buy a chick a diamond ring with the intent of marrying her but the ring isnt hers till she says i do...hell anyone that steals from me is gonne be hurtin the next day....remember your commandments



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by smart420
ok this is just freakin stupid...grow up...it wasnt his till its givin to him...i can buy a chick a diamond ring with the intent of marrying her but the ring isnt hers till she says i do...hell anyone that steals from me is gonne be hurtin the next day....remember your commandments


Ok, this is freakin stupid, grow up..his Mom GAVE THE PRESENT TO HIM. She also told him not to open it til the 25th. If you gave a chick a ring in a box and said " open it tonight ", you could not have her charged with theft if you found out she opened it early. You know nothing of the law, and nothing about the ' Commandments' either, obviously:

Vengeance is MINE, saith the Lord. Love your enemy. Forgive them that spitefully use you. Need I repeat another hundred verses to show that your gung ho " I would give a hurtin to anyone that..." nonsense. Barney Fife scares no when while his bullet remains in his pocket!!

Since you cannot read and comprehend the news reports, the Mom GAVE the boy the present. At that point it became HIS legally. The fact that he disobeyed a RULE, does NOT mean that he broke a LAW. Can you see the difference between a LAW and a RULE? Good. Now go to lesson two, titled " Paying attention and responding intelligently' and study that before you post again!!



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Sounds like this kid is out of control. Sounds like the mother has no idea what she is doing.

I don't think the cops did anything wrong, but I would hate to have that poor excuse of a parent. How about not getting the kid a video game system if he is so out of control? Doesn't anyone get socks and books and sweaters anymore?

Reinforce bad behavior with mind numbing gifts, great job. Please see the movie Idiocracy for a perfect example.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join