Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#151

Post by staticman2 »

fingerlocks wrote: post #150
staticman2 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be inventing legal terms and ideas like an improvisational poet ("authority of agency over the comatose"????). How could that possibly help?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency

As that wikipedia article explains Agency is a commercial law concept. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of crimes under criminal law. Also "authority of agency" isn't a legal term. Which is why you'll find no results on google scholar. Agents have a scope of authority-- but nobody calls this "authority of agency" and furthermore your concept of an "authority of agency" for reporting a crime isn't a thing. (You'd have to actually read the results that come up on google scholar to confirm this as putting in direct quotes in google turns up results that don't contain that exact actual quote.)

Furthermore you know you are just making things up, why not just concede you like to imagine how criminal law works and you are having fun making up things like "authority of agency"?

Or perhaps you think i'm a very stupid person and treating you unfairly, maybe you can educate me by finding a reference for your claim that "In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something"

I suspect your source was your impression of law and order episodes, but even if I'm wrong it seems unfair for you to demand evidence from others without providing any yourself. I look forward to being educated by how you know "In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something".

This seems to be a crazy claim on it's face, since, as I explained, the owner of the object might be dead, in a coma, an infant, being threatened by the mob not to testify, etc. And the concept of hostile witnesses also exists in criminal law.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#152

Post by RecycledEle »

brewdad wrote: post #139
RecycledEle wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in Texas. Dumpster divers are usually charged with crimes here, and I think it's absurd to charge them with crimes.

The real question is whether or not it is legal to shoot someone looking through your trash? Sadly, I’m pretty sure the answer is yes.

Not technically, but I would not be surprised if some cops looked the other way.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#153

Post by fingerlocks »

staticman2 wrote: post #151
fingerlocks wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency

As that wikipedia article explains Agency is a commercial law concept. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of crimes under criminal law. Also "authority of agency" isn't a legal term. Which is why you'll find no results on google scholar. Agents have a scope of authority-- but nobody calls this "authority of agency" and furthermore your concept of an "authority of agency" for reporting a crime isn't a thing. (Y…

Ok you’re being rude.

First, my wife is a lawyer.

Second, I pasted that link because I thought you didn’t know what “agency” meant based on your non-sequitur response. As in “principal” and “agent”.

I never claimed that was a legal term. If you are an agent with authority, what would you call it? Power of attorney doesn’t apply here. In general, someone that acts on the behalf of another. That’s it. No one is inventing new words. That’s just how grown-ups talk.

Ergo. If the owner is dead, then someone else is the owner. If the person in a coma, someone else can legally act on their behalf, like a spouse or family member. You know, someone with authority. Acting on behalf, like an agent. There’s those poetic words again! Same applies to an infant. Understood?

Finally, the point I was making is that someone has to report the crime and demonstrate that theft actually occurred for a successful prosecution. You are extremely unlikely to get arrested, much less prosecuted, for openly hypothesizing about whether a theoretical crime took place. Which is the very topic we were originally discussing.

I was fast and loose with the word “owner” because I thought my audience would understand the broader definition. Apparently “agent” doesn’t t work for you either, but whatever you want to call it, I hope for your sake that it’s been made more clear.

I’ve already clarified my position once, and now ad nauseum. I don’t know what else to say if you’re still confused.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#154

Post by staticman2 »

fingerlocks wrote: post #153
staticman2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As that wikipedia article explains Agency is a commercial law concept. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of crimes under criminal law. Also "authority of agency" isn't a legal term. Which is why you'll find no results on google scholar. Agents have a scope of authority-- but nobody calls this "authority of agency" and furthermore your concept of an "authority of agency" for reporting a crime isn't a thing. (Y…

Ok you’re being rude. First, my wife is a lawyer. Second, I pasted that link because I thought you didn’t know what “agency” meant based on your non-sequitur response. As in “principal” and “agent”. I never claimed that was a legal term. If you are an agent with authority, what would you call it? Power of attorney doesn’t apply here. In general, someone that acts on the behalf of another. That’s it. No one is inventi…

Maybe you should ask your wife, because as I understand it the prosecution has to prove a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the legal standard, it's the same standard as in Britain as I understand it. You seem to think that someone with some sort of legal authority on behalf of the victim has to testify that the item was in fact the victim's and was stolen-- this is not correct, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with any admissible evidence. Or maybe you agree with me and we are talking past each other, I don't know?

To go back to the Doctor Who example, there's clearly concern by the archivists that admissible evidence exists to show the film was stolen by them. Whether this is likely to be prosecuted and conviction is likely to occur is a different matter.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#155

Post by fingerlocks »

staticman2 wrote: post #154
fingerlocks wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok you’re being rude. First, my wife is a lawyer. Second, I pasted that link because I thought you didn’t know what “agency” meant based on your non-sequitur response. As in “principal” and “agent”. I never claimed that was a legal term. If you are an agent with authority, what would you call it? Power of attorney doesn’t apply here. In general, someone that acts on the behalf of another. That’s it. No one is inventi…

Maybe you should ask your wife, because as I understand it the prosecution has to prove a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the legal standard, it's the same standard as in Britain as I understand it. You seem to think that someone with some sort of legal authority on behalf of the victim has to testify that the item was in fact the victim's and was stolen-- this is not correct, it can be proven beyond…

No, you’re making assertions I didn’t claim. You have to demonstrate that a theft occurred. A theft, by definition, requires a claim of ownership. An owner. Without a claim of ownership, there is no crime because you can trivially argue it was a gift or abandoned property.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#156

Post by staticman2 »

fingerlocks wrote: post #155
staticman2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should ask your wife, because as I understand it the prosecution has to prove a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the legal standard, it's the same standard as in Britain as I understand it. You seem to think that someone with some sort of legal authority on behalf of the victim has to testify that the item was in fact the victim's and was stolen-- this is not correct, it can be proven beyond…

No, you’re making assertions I didn’t claim. You have to demonstrate that a theft occurred. A theft, by definition, requires a claim of ownership. An owner. Without a claim of ownership, there is no crime because you can trivially argue it was a gift or abandoned property.

Again you are making things up. A defense attorney is welcome to argue (for example) that the guy who battered me unconscious with a baseball bat on the security footage and took my wallet was actually "gifted" my wallet, or the wallet was actually "abandoned" by my unconscious self, but nobody has to testify as to the ownership of my wallet for a successful prosecution. The jury as finder of fact has sufficient evidence from the security footage alone.

Of course I have no idea what you think you mean by "claim of ownership" at this point- courts make ruling based on "admissible evidence" as I said. There is no legal requirement for the evidence to be a "claim of ownership".

Feel free to have last word if you want, this conversation has gotten silly.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#157

Post by fingerlocks »

staticman2 wrote: post #156
fingerlocks wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you’re making assertions I didn’t claim. You have to demonstrate that a theft occurred. A theft, by definition, requires a claim of ownership. An owner. Without a claim of ownership, there is no crime because you can trivially argue it was a gift or abandoned property.

Again you are making things up. A defense attorney is welcome to argue (for example) that the guy who battered me unconscious with a baseball bat on the security footage and took my wallet was actually "gifted" my wallet, or the wallet was actually "abandoned" by my unconscious self, but nobody has to testify as to the ownership of my wallet for a successful prosecution. The jury as finder of fact has sufficient evid…

Yeah your whole counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”. Let’s go with the wallet analogy, subtraction out the unrelated battery part. Let’s say someone straight up pick pocketed your wallet, you didn’t know, and someone else reported it. The perp gets arrested. One of the three things will happen next:

1. You are informed of the theft. You confirm that the wallet is yours and perp is charged.

2. You are informed of the theft. Instead you claim that it was not stolen because you either don’t care, feel bad for the perp, you hated that wallet anyway, or any other reason. There is no case. One rando stranger’s word against another, the perp walks.

3. You are not informed of the theft. No one can prove that the wallet was stolen, because we find ourselves back in situation #2.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#158

Post by [deleted] »

fingerlocks wrote: post #157
staticman2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again you are making things up. A defense attorney is welcome to argue (for example) that the guy who battered me unconscious with a baseball bat on the security footage and took my wallet was actually "gifted" my wallet, or the wallet was actually "abandoned" by my unconscious self, but nobody has to testify as to the ownership of my wallet for a successful prosecution. The jury as finder of fact has sufficient evid…

Yeah your whole counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”. Let’s go with the wallet analogy, subtraction out the unrelated battery part. Let’s say someone straight up pick pocketed your wallet, you didn’t know, and someone else reported it. The perp gets arrested. One of the three things will happen next: 1. You are informed of the theft. You confirm that the wallet is yours and perp is charged. 2. You are informed of t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN