Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> For stupid dak, in English now.
>
> Here's a typical shoplifting statute.

As usual, nothing relevant here.  You do remember that we were talking
about the legal _meaning_ of an act being established after the fact,
because you can't determine the possible intent of the act after
additional things have happened?

As applied to licensing and licensing conditions, where you are unable
to grasp that not adhering to licensing conditions without any
presumption of honoring them implies that the license is effectively
nullified rather than breached, even though this fact is established
_after_ any copies may have already been made that _would_ be legal _if_
the licensing conditions were honored.

Your quotes do nothing whatsoever to counter that.  Instead they show a
mad obsession with an example I gave, without actually countering them.

For example, pretty much all of your quotes state that intent of theft
can be assumed established when some ware is _concealed_, something
which happens _after_ the ware is _taken_, when the _crime_ consists of
_taking_ the ware with the intent of misappropriating it.

So yes, we have the separation between the time of the crime, and the
time of sufficient factual evidence establishing the intent constituting
an ingredient of the crime.

-- 
David Kastrup