i would like to get a honest reply please this woman back stole something from her now.ex. husband i knew it was his am i at libality as well as her for taking it even i knew it was his i cant say what but it wasnt money it was something else in a medical way am i at libility . where she gave it to me and lied to him telling him it got washed by her . isnt that hr fault and i am not in no way held lible for it.
2007-10-16 17:43:29 · 4 answers · asked by matthew v 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it was something she took. but was his i knew it isnt she the one lible rather than me over this ..
2007-10-16 17:45:38 · update #1
you stated in a medical way am i not right. if this is stolden medication you took yes by law you both are lible by law you as well stated you knew it wasnt yours and she told him she washed it but by law you are lible as much as her pal that.s felony chrges if i put those peaces together you want to bright on this or nither was she my opion?
2007-10-16 18:00:24 · answer #1 · answered by the_silverfoxx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You just confessed to aiding and abetting in a robbery and possession of stolen property. Those are crimes. If you know it is stolen that shows intent. So not only are you liable for damages in the form of the property, but you are looking at a fine and or jail time, as it sits right now. And all property has value or equity. The court will decide what that is and that may be the damages unless the court finds your actions grossly negligent or malicious and then they can hit you with punitive damages as well. You might want to talk to a lawyer, especially if he knows you have this item.
2007-10-17 01:07:15 · answer #2 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With the way I understand your problem, you must prove possession in good faith. One way to prove it is to show that you were misled to believe that the giver of the thing has the right to give it to you. At the same time you should also offer to return the thing at the very first instance you came to know of the misrepresentation.
Ever heard of the anti-fencing law? It punishes folks who buy stolen property, and treat them as principal to the crime, which means they stand in the same footing as the thief, and deserving of equal punishment. Mere possession of the proceeds of the crime makes you criminally liable as principal under the anti-fencing law. Since you say you did not buy the thing and it was given to you, I'll take your word for it.
But just in case you gave anything back to the giver - in cash or kind - or any favor or consideration for that matter, or anything that can be interpreted as the equivalent of payment, then you can no longer say in your defense that the thing was given to you for free.
A person caught in possession of stolen property is presumed to be (1) the person who actually stole it or (2) in connivance with the person who actually stole it. You need to show proof of having acted in good faith in order for you to overcome the presumption. If I were you, I will try to prove that I took the thing in good faith believing in the generosity and goodwill of the giver, but I would definitely not have accepted it if I knew all along that it was stolen from someone else.
2007-10-17 01:13:54 · answer #3 · answered by the asthmatic assassin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you didn't take it yourself. Better give it back.
2007-10-17 00:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by TG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋