Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, it's not theft to have something under the terms of a lease or a bailment or a borrowing. But keeping it outside of such terms brings it into the criminal realm.
Oh please.. I've owned probably over 100 units in my days with thousands and I mean THOUSANDS of tenants.. Not ONCE did them staying over in my units come close to approaching criminal realms..
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
It certainly can become criminal. At first, you're a tenant-trespasser, and you can possess the house until an eviction preceding (at which point you would be civilly liable for rent while you stayed there). Once I get the eviction order, if you continue to stay, you are criminally trespassing and will be arrested.
You mean AFTER I take one to court and obtain a civil award, THEN it becomes criminal if they continue to stay? Yes, but this involves a CRIMINAL act first..
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
If kept with the mens rea (intent) required by the larceny statute, then it absolutely is theft. 99.9999% of neighbors wouldn't take it to the police (and I imagine 99.9% wouldn't even take it to a civil court), but you absolutely could.
Isn't jailing some one for this a bit over the top. I don't even think it would be a Criminal Case in the UK, more of a Civil Matter between the Video Store and the Woman in question.
No, its called petty theft. She just now got caught. She'll probably end up getting a fine or community service by the judge.
If the truth were known the video store owner has probably been sending her threatening letters for the past 9 years & she's been avoiding it. Chances are this isn't the first time she's done this either.
I have read the article and still don't believe this woman would be locked up for a night in the UK and that the Video Sore would merely be advised by UK Police to go before the Civil Courts, as it would be deemed a Civil Dispute.
Hey Bamford. The woman is from SOUTH CAROLINA. The article is in a UK newspaper.
No, its called petty theft. She just now got caught. She'll probably end up getting a fine or community service by the judge.
If the truth were known the video store owner has probably been sending her threatening letters for the past 9 years & she's been avoiding it. Chances are this isn't the first time she's done this either.
"Civil disputes can occur at a personal level - for instance, when neighbours argue over late night noise or access to a shared driveway. They can arise between individuals and businesses, such as when customers refuse to pay their bills or companies fail to deliver a service to an agreed level. And they can occur between businesses over the right to use a brand name or trademark, for example."
A distinction is made between public law, which governs the relationship between individual citizens and the state, and private law, which governs relationships between individuals and private organisations. Furthermore as has already been pointed out in order to take a video out on loan, a person would have to supply ID and have signed a legall binding contract with the Video Lending Company, the none return of the video, which is disputed being a possible breach of contract and a civil matter. If you start to imprison and charge everyone who has not returned Library Books or has a Dispute over the Internet, then the police aren't going to have much time to deal with real crime.
For practical purposes, the most significant distinction is between civil law and criminal law.
A person who believes that another individual or organisation has committed a civil wrong can complete a claim form and send it to the appropriate court. The County Court, which is based at over 200 locations, deals with most claims involving less than £25,000 and claims for less than £50,000 that involve injury to a person. The High Court, which is in London, hears most higher-value cases. In the County and High Courts, each case is heard by a single judge.
The person who starts a civil case is called a claimant, and he or she has the burden of proving that, more probably than not, the other party (the defendant) committed a civil wrong. If the claimant is successful, the usual remedy is damages: a sum of money paid by the defendant to the claimant. Other remedies, such as a court order that prohibits a person from behaving in a certain way, are available in some circumstances.
Either party to a civil case may appeal to a higher court against the decision.
Hey Bamford. The woman is from SOUTH CAROLINA. The article is in a UK newspaper.
It's not in a UK Newspaper it's on the BBC Website and I am more than aware that the Woman comes from South Carolina, hence the thread title 'US woman arrested over nine-year overdue rental video'. What I said was this is over the top in my opinion and certainly would not have occurred in the UK.
"Civil disputes can occur at a personal level - for instance, when neighbours argue over late night noise or access to a shared driveway. They can arise between individuals and businesses, such as when customers refuse to pay their bills or companies fail to deliver a service to an agreed level. And they can occur between businesses over the right to use a brand name or trademark, for example."
A distinction is made between public law, which governs the relationship between individual citizens and the state, and private law, which governs relationships between individuals and private organisations. Furthermore as has already been pointed out in order to take a video out on loan, a person would have to supply ID and have signed a legall binding contract with the Video Lending Company, the none return of the video, which is disputed being a possible breach of contract and a civil matter. If you start to imprison and charge everyone who has not returned Library Books or has a Dispute over the Internet, then the police aren't going to have much time to deal with real crime.
For practical purposes, the most significant distinction is between civil law and criminal law.
A person who believes that another individual or organisation has committed a civil wrong can complete a claim form and send it to the appropriate court. The County Court, which is based at over 200 locations, deals with most claims involving less than £25,000 and claims for less than £50,000 that involve injury to a person. The High Court, which is in London, hears most higher-value cases. In the County and High Courts, each case is heard by a single judge.
The person who starts a civil case is called a claimant, and he or she has the burden of proving that, more probably than not, the other party (the defendant) committed a civil wrong. If the claimant is successful, the usual remedy is damages: a sum of money paid by the defendant to the claimant. Other remedies, such as a court order that prohibits a person from behaving in a certain way, are available in some circumstances.
Either party to a civil case may appeal to a higher court against the decision.
Oh please.. I've owned probably over 100 units in my days with thousands and I mean THOUSANDS of tenants.. Not ONCE did them staying over in my units come close to approaching criminal realms..
That's fantastic. I'm glad none of your tenants have overstayed a lawful eviction and criminally trespassed upon your property.
Quote:
You mean AFTER I take one to court and obtain a civil award, THEN it becomes criminal if they continue to stay? Yes, but this involves a CRIMINAL act first..
Of course - for something to be criminal, the act must on it's face meet the act requirement (actus reus) of the criminal statute. Having the required actus reus places the act within the criminal realm.
As to your situation, real estate landlord-tenant law is set up to reward the wrongdoer- it actually relieves trespassers of criminal liability for a period of time.
Quote:
Wrong.. the property isnt stolen..
Perhaps it's stolen, perhaps it's not. The intent aspect is the part in question and ultimately determines whether it was stolen or not. But the fact that I have kept it without permission places it in the criminal realm.
Let's look at a real law - the theft statute in my state of Colorado:
"A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:
(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or
(b) Knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or
(c) Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit; or
(d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person."
The first sentence is the act part - if you do that, then you're in the criminal realm. The (a)-(d) is the intent part lawyers would argue over to the factfinder (a judge or jury).
Now, let's apply it to the story here:
This lady clearly meets the act requirement. She had possession (hence exercised control) of somebody else's VHS cassette (which has value) without authorization (beyond the number of days she was granted permission to have it). Furthermore, she did so knowingly (she knew it wasn't hers and she knew she had control over it).
That places her act in the criminal realm. Once she did this, the true owner of the VHS has every right to bring criminal charges against her.
The question then becomes did she have the required intent ((a)-(d)) to be found guilty of theft. That's a question for a judge or jury.
That's fantastic. I'm glad none of your tenants have overstayed a lawful eviction and criminally trespassed upon your property.
How does one get a lawful eviction if not by civil court
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Of course - for something to be criminal, the act must on it's face meet the act requirement (actus reus) of the criminal statute. Having the required actus reus places the act within the criminal realm.
As to your situation, real estate landlord-tenant law is set up to reward the wrongdoer- it actually relieves trespassers of criminal liability for a period of time.
And not returning a video tape rental is far greater detriment to society that we must arrest them, even though the law doesnt allow it..
We dont have debters prisons yet in america.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Perhaps it's stolen, perhaps it's not. The intent aspect is the part in question that determines whether it was stolen (criminal) or not. But the fact that I have kept it without permission places it in the criminal realm.
Let's look at a real law - the theft statute in my state of Colorado.
"A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and:
(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or
(b) Knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or
(c) Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment, or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit; or
(d) Demands any consideration to which he is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person."
The first sentence is the act part - you do that, then your'e in the criminal realm. The (a)-(d) is the intent part lawyers would argue over to the factfinder (a judge or jury).
Now, let's apply it to the story here:
This lady clearly meets the act requirement. She had possession (hence exercised control) of somebody else's VHS cassette (which as value) without authorization (beyond the number of days she was granted permission to have it). Furthermore, she did so knowingly (she knew it wasn't hers and she knew she had control over it).
That places her act in the criminal realm. Once she did this, the true owner of the VHS has every right to bring criminal charges against her.
The question then becomes did she have the required intent ((a)-(d)) to be found guilty of theft. That's a question for a judge or jury.
Note the keyword in bold.. A rental agreement GIVES authorization.
The only other section which could possibly apply is by deception, but you'd need to prove she had intent to deceive..
In the UK, most retailers even prefer to take Civil Recovery Action against Shoplifters, which is generally more effective in terms of recouping losses and is backed up by County Court bailiffs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
