3 ms·
Stolen goods being stolen because they're stolen is tautological. Not sure why this is a point of contention? And you absolutely can have in possession someth
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Stolen goods being stolen because they're stolen is tautological. Not sure why this is a point of contention?
And you absolutely can have in possession something that was stolen that you did not steal, as the nature of your relationship with a good can change in ways other than possession.
- fluoridation 3y agoYou're not reading carefully enough. >"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them is not the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because they're stolen Nor is it the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because you stole them If you have in your possession an item, either it's stolen or it's not stolen. If it's not stolen then it can't become stolen without leaving your possession. What makes it stolen or not stolen is not anything you do with it from now, but how it was acquired. That's what my statement was meant to emphasize. Is it obvious that something is stolen because someone stole it? Yes, but it's what I'm forced to state by the topic of this discussion.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoOh, then it's not correct to claim that something in your possession that isn't stolen can't become stolen without leaving your possession. You can easily possess an item that hasn't been stolen, but upon some eventuality, no longer belongs to you that you still possess. An expired library book, for example, or a rented car. Perhaps you've entered into an agreement involving collateral that you've violated. An item you've maintained possession of will no longer be yours when the collateral becomes the property of the person you've entered into the agreement with.