Joined
·
68,469 Posts
:wink:legacy38 said:They do if they are able to steal one.Malum Prohibitum said:He also carries an Hk, and any good police officer would know that criminals do not carry Hk.
:wink:legacy38 said:They do if they are able to steal one.Malum Prohibitum said:He also carries an Hk, and any good police officer would know that criminals do not carry Hk.
Really, I'm wondering what would happen. A smart police officer would probably back down, I hope. A [email protected] would probably step it up a little just for the fun of it.Malum Prohibitum said:And then the police officer kept asking, “Are you a lawyer?â€
I wonder what would have happened if the answer to the cop was "Yes, I am"?
Might I suggest one of these in the alternate.viper32cm said:Really, I'm wondering what would happen. A smart police officer would probably back down, I hope. A [email protected] would probably step it up a little just for the fun of it.Malum Prohibitum said:And then the police officer kept asking, “Are you a lawyer?â€
I wonder what would have happened if the answer to the cop was "Yes, I am"?
Next time I OC I'm going to wear an Emory Law t-shirt. Perhaps the one I have with the big scales of justice on the back and the latin phrase meaning "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I was detained for open carry it is likely that one of the partys to the incident would be ignorant of the law.
I would love for some cop to complain to the dean! Oh man, that'd be a fun conversation to have with an Aussie!
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... php?t=6031viper32cm said:I was thinking about a situation like that just yesterday. What happened, if you don't mind me asking?Firearmz said:I was watching this video last night when the police knocked on my door, one of my neighbors called the police to me for open carry last night. Guess he didn't see the badge though.
Adverse possession is the method by which one turns a prepossessionary interest into an ownership. I realize that means nothing to non-lawyers so let me elaborate.AeroShooter said:Might I suggest one of these in the alternate.
I get the humor of adversly possessing someone's girlfriend, but one of our legal staff is going to have to explain the exact subtlety of it...
So what this means is that the t-shirt wearer in question, alleges that he took someone's girlfriend... specifically, took her... as if he owned her...viper32cm said:Adverse possession is the method by which one turns a prepossessionary interest into an ownership. I realize that means nothing to non-lawyers so let me elaborate.AeroShooter said:Might I suggest one of these in the alternate.
I get the humor of adversly possessing someone's girlfriend, but one of our legal staff is going to have to explain the exact subtlety of it...
You have to actually occupy someones property and be the only one on the property, you must occupy the property in a way that informs others of your possession, and such occupation must be counter to the rights the true owner has in the property. Finally, one must do those three things for a continuous period of time, which varies by state.
A+B+C+D = You own the property.
But women aren't property.AeroShooter said:So what this means is that the t-shirt wearer in question, alleges that he took someone's girlfriend... specifically, took her... as if he owned her...
Hmmm, interesting. Go on...
Right, I got that, and if he adversely possess the property (girlfriend) again, the clock is reset... assuming this cycle of adverse possession and removal of the trespasser were to continue for some time... could not the adverse possessor then claim a prescriptive easement on the property (girlfriend)?viper32cm said:But women aren't property.AeroShooter said:So what this means is that the t-shirt wearer in question, alleges that he took someone's girlfriend... specifically, took her... as if he owned her...
Hmmm, interesting. Go on...
Suffice it to say I think the adverse possession would be pretty much complete at the first step (actual occupation of the property (girlfriend) and the only one on the property (girlfriend)).
You can force an adverse possessor off of your property before the time period is up.
But I think the only way to do that with the girl friend is through assault and battery which is where the lesson changes from property law to torts.
Prescriptive easements require the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner. The minute the owner interrupted the possession then the claim of prescriptive easement would go away.AeroShooter said:Right, I got that, and if he adversely possess the property (girlfriend) again, the clock is reset... assuming this cycle of adverse possession and removal of the trespasser were to continue for some time... could not the adverse possessor then claim a prescriptive easement on the property (girlfriend)?
Get a comedian, they're cheaper.Tinkerhell said::up:
lawyer humor
:?
:rotfl2:
So the time that Paul Simon left Cecilia to wash his face... that could be considered a perscriptive easement, correct?viper32cm said:Prescriptive easements require the knowledge and acquiescence of the owner. The minute the owner interrupted the possession then the claim of prescriptive easement would go away.AeroShooter said:Right, I got that, and if he adversely possess the property (girlfriend) again, the clock is reset... assuming this cycle of adverse possession and removal of the trespasser were to continue for some time... could not the adverse possessor then claim a prescriptive easement on the property (girlfriend)?