[Malum Prohibitum]

He also carries an Hk, and any good police officer would know that criminals do not carry Hk.

They do if they are able to steal one.

:wink:

 

[wsweeks2]

The bigger problem is that one of the council members got up and walked out when a bunch of VCDL members showed up in support of Chet and his family.

 

[viper32cm]

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"?

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.

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!

 

[AeroShooter]

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"?

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.

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!

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...

 

[Firearmz]

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.

I was thinking about a situation like that just yesterday. What happened, if you don't mind me asking?

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... php?t=6031

 

[viper32cm]

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...

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.

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.

 

[AeroShooter]

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...

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.

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.

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...

 

[viper32cm]

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...

But women aren't property.

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.

 

[AeroShooter]

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...

But women aren't property.

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.

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]

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)?

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.

 

[Tinkerhell]

:up:
lawyer humor


:?





:rotfl2:

 

[Guest]

:up:
lawyer humor

:?

:rotfl2:

Get a comedian, they're cheaper.

 

[AeroShooter]

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)?

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.

So the time that Paul Simon left Cecilia to wash his face... that could be considered a perscriptive easement, correct?