![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Larry Dighera wrote: The kid's alleged behavior (being under age and driving his mother's car presumably on a public street without possessing a driver's licence nor her permission, and flying an aircraft without benefit of license nor permission to use the aircraft) is irresponsible and illegal. An adult would have been prosecuted with those crimes (and may still be). ----------------------------------reply----------------------------------------------------- Hello All, The statutes in Alabama that are used to prosecute a juvenile in Alabama are different from the adult charges. If there is a charge, it will be "violation of Youthful Offender Statutes". In other words, the charge will have no name such as theft of property, etc.. The young man's criminal history, if convicted, will read "Youthful Offender". We are hosting a CAP SARX this weekend so I'm sure some of the folks from that part of the State will have the inside scoop. Stephen Pearce Foley, Alabama |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to "joyriding" had averse effect Evidence please? Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect there's more than just the two I'm familiar with. But what evidence (if any) was there that the previous laws were less effective than more severe ones? The mere fact that a legislature decided to boost the penalties doesn't mean there was any good reason to think that the previous statutes were less effective. The legislators could just have been pandering to ideologues whose policy preferences are not based on sound evidence. --Gary |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:37:43 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in rhCte.2$Z.0@trndny05:: Ok, I read it again. Where does force come into the matter? In Section 13A-8-11, to which I mistakenly thought Mr. Dixon was referring. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... Well, many states finding figured out that downplaying car theft to "joyriding" had averse effect Evidence please? Well, in the early 90's, Colorado boosted their law on auto theft for that reason. And I understand Arizona did likewise in the mid 90's. I suspect there's more than just the two I'm familiar with. In addition to your having no evidence to support your assertion that lesser penalties for unauthorized joyriding have been found to have "adverse effect", it turns out that the criminal codes in both Colorado and Arizona (the only examples you cited) do in fact provide for lesser offenses and penalties for joyriding than for theft. Arizona's article 13-1803 defines the offense of "Unlawful use of means of transportation": "A person commits unlawful use of means of transportation if, without intent permanently to deprive, the person either: 1. Knowingly takes unauthorized control over another person's means of transportation. 2. Knowingly is transported or physically located in a vehicle that the person knows or has reason to know is in the unlawful possession of another person pursuant to paragraph 1 or section 13-1814.". Colorado makes an even more sweeping distinction between theft and temporary unauthorized use. In Colorado, the distinction isn't limited to vehicles, but applies to theft in general. Colorado's article 18-4-401 defines theft as follows: "(1) 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." --Gary |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05:: How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft? I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an attractive nuisance in this case. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson wrote in YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05:: How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft? I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an attractive nuisance in this case. Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act constitutes theft. --Gary |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, George Patterson wrote in YjCte.3$Z.1@trndny05:: How the hell can anyone say with a straight face that stealing isn't theft? I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for creating an attractive nuisance. Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool. George Patterson Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry, and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing? Because she smells like a new truck. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
George Patterson wrote:
Sorta hard to steal a swimming pool. http://www.berlinien.de/immobilien/bericht1748.html |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
I'm not going to look up the statute, but if I recall correctly, in California a homeowner with a swimming pool in his/her backyard must have it fenced and keep all gates *locked* or face prosecution for creating an attractive nuisance. As the airport and aircraft were not locked in this case, and the ignition key was on a clipboard in the aircraft, it would seem the aircraft owner was guilty of creating an attractive nuisance in this case. It was careless for the ignition key to be there, no doubt, but whatever happened to the old, basic, 9X-out-of-10 accurate logic that if you TAKE something that doesn't belong to you without the owner's knowledge, regardless of what you plan to use it for, you've STOLEN it? or that if you enter someone else's yard or home without their knowledge, YOU are the one in the wrong for trespassing, regardless of whether the gate was locked or not?! In an effort to twist straightforward laws to suit the rare cases where someone may have had an explainable reason, they've given the common criminal who *definitely* knows that what he's doing is against the law 10 different possible defenses and made the owner of the property responsible for any and all damages in a lot of cases! Go figure. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:31:22 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in :: Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with whether or not the act constitutes theft. I think it relates to establishing culpability for the flight. If a person drowns in a pool with an unlocked gate, I believe the homeowner can be held responsible even if the person was an intruder. I'm not attempting to assert that this statute is directly applicable in this case, but it seems to establish some responsibility on the part of attractive nuisance owners to prevent unauthorized use. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Piloting | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Will US Sport Pilot be insurable? | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 12 | November 29th 03 03:57 AM |
Small Sheriff's Departments Using Helicopters | Gig Giacona | Rotorcraft | 23 | September 7th 03 09:52 AM |