Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
>> > "... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy.
>> 
>> You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was
>> On 3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>  > David Kastrup wrote:
>>  >> Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes theft.  The
>>  >> relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the ware, the
>>  >> status of the theft is established when I pass the cash register.
>>  > Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.
>> 
>> As usual, Terekhov was wrong, and the Colorado case is an
>> example which demonstrates this. Borrowing a DVD from a
>> library is a legal act. Borrowing a DVD from a library and
>> failing to return it . . .
>
> Uh moron Hyman. Let comrade dak translate the following for you:
>
> Zwangsvollstreckung (§§ 704 - 945 ZPO)

No need to bother.  It is utterly irrelevant to anything discussed so
far.  Not that this should surprise anybody...

-- 
David Kastrup