OJ was trying to get his property back wasn't he? It will be a travesty of justice if he goes down on that armed robbery charge... it's well established that a person entertaining an honest belief that he was using reasonable force to recover his own property can't be guilty of larceny and so therefore can't be guilty of robbery.<br><br>km<br><br>
Well, see..we have this thing we call police officers who are the ones who should have been handling that case. They investigate and then determine if the items were in fact property of OJ.<br><br>OJ had no solid evidence that the items were actually his. <br><br>Perhaps he was instead thinking he had the killer of Nicole Brown cornered in that room? He's an ass who deserves to be in jail.<br><br><br><br>my photos
The idiots were carrying guns. Armed robbery. With any luck, OJ will finally wind up where he belonged a long time ago.<br><br>And honestly, I don't think KM believes half the crap he says, it's just that he knows everything in the entire world.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
_________________________ I always deserve it. Really.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>... we have this thing we call police officers who are the ones who should have been handling that case. They investigate and then determine if the items were in fact property of OJ.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's one option for someone that wants to see a criminal prosecution but for someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about that but just wants his property back it's well known that the right to self-help is available in US law. <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>police officers... investigate and then determine if the items were in fact property of OJ.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I wouldn't recommend police officers for that kind of judicial role because their findings aren't conclusive anyway... no, in such a case it's better to grab your property and let someone else bring the matter up before the judge to explain why you weren't entitled to it. <br><br>km<br><br>
You are right, I misspoke. He should have taken out a warrant for theft of property and let the court system handle it. <br><br>Ah, but then I suppose he is worried that they would get off like he did in his own trial. <br><br>I found it self-help via Google. So, see the part I put in bold? That's the whole crux of the matter....he used the threat of violence. Case closed. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.<br><br>Redressing or preventing wrongs by one's own action without recourse to legal proceedings.<br><br>Self-help is a term in the law that describes corrective or preventive measures taken by a private citizen. Common examples of self-help include action taken by landlords against tenants, such as eviction and removal of property from the premises, and repossession of leased or mortgaged goods, such as automobiles, watercraft, and expensive equipment. Persons may use self-help remedies only where they are permitted by law. State and local laws permit self-help in commercial transactions, tort and nuisance situations, and landlord and tenant relationships.<br><br>Self-help is permissible where it is allowed by law and can be accomplished without committing a breach of the peace. A breach of the peace refers to violence or threats of violence. For example, if a person buys a ship financed by a mortgage, the mortgage company may repossess the ship if the buyer fails to make the mortgage payments. If the buyer is present when the ship is being taken away and the buyer objects to the repossession, the mortgage company breaches the peace if it can repossess the ship only through violence or the threat of violence. In such a case, the mortgage company would be forced to file suit in court to repossess the ship. Repossessors attempt to circumvent objections by distracting or deceiving the defaulting party during the repossession.<br><br>A majority of states have banned self-help by landlords in the eviction of delinquent tenants. These legislatures have determined that the interests of the landlord in operating a profitable business must be balanced against a tenant's need for shelter. In place of the self-help remedy, states have devised expedited judicial proceedings for evictions. These proceedings make it possible for a landlord to evict a tenant without unacceptable delays while giving the tenant an opportunity to present to a court arguments against eviction.<br><br>In states that give landlords the right of self-help, landlords may evict a tenant on their own only if they can do so in a peaceful manner. The precise definition of peaceful varies from state to state. In some states any entry by a landlord that does not involve violence or a breach of the peace is acceptable. In other states any entry that is conducted without the tenant's consent is illegal.<br><br>In any case, if a landlord evicts a tenant through self-help, the eviction must be performed reasonably. For example, a landlord may not nail plywood across the entrance to a tenant's second-story apartment while the tenant is inside and then remove the steps leading up to the apartment. One landlord who performed such self-help faced criminal penalties after the trapped tenant and her two-year-old daughter needed the help of the local fire department to escape the apartment. A landlord who violates laws on self-help may face criminal charges and a civil suit for damages filed by the tenant.<br><br>One new form of self-help that poses interesting problems is self-help by providers of computer software. Businesses in the United States that use computers have become dependent on computer software. Sometimes when disputes have arisen between the buyer of software and the software provider, software providers have disabled the buyer's software from a remote location. In one case a software supplier called Logisticon entered into a contract with Revlon Group to provide it with computer software. After a dispute arose between the two parties, Logisticon accessed Revlon's software system and disabled it, causing Revlon to suffer $20 million in product delivery delays. Revlon brought suit against Logisticon, alleging that Logisticon had violated the contract and that it had misappropriated Revlon's trade secrets. The two parties settled the suit out of court, and the terms of the settlement remain undisclosed.<br><br>Self-help measures are controversial because they amount to taking the law into one's own hands. Opponents of self-help laws argue that they encourage unethical and sometimes illegal practices by creditors and that they diminish public respect for the law. Proponents counter that self-help, if performed peaceably, is a valuable feature of the justice system because it gives creditors an opportunity to alleviate losses and keeps small, simple disputes from glutting the court system.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br><br>my photos<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by OSXaddict on 09/08/08 09:59 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Well I don't know about 'case closed' because whoever wrote that doesn't support his or her conclusions with authority - it simply makes a declaration about self-help that could be right or wrong - but happens to be wrong because it wouldn't survive the decision in R v Skivington  CA 166<---. The case is persuasive authority in the United States unless it has been negated by federal or state legislation which your article doesn't establish.<br><br>km<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What would a British case have anything to do with US Law?<p><hr></blockquote><p> Well the law of trespass and conversion adopted in the US is itself a creation of the English common law. Decisions of the English courts are of persuasive authority in the US (and vice versa) and the citation of such cases by counsel in judicial proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic is a not uncommon occurrence.<br><br>km<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.