Talk:Possession (law)

message: Note Well: Any discussion of the content of the accompanying article (other than the first comment) that is/has been added to the top of this page is misplaced, and if it has not already been moved to a more appropriate position on the page, it is subject to that treatment. --Jerzy•t 07:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled note

message: Don't know if anyone is still around but this needs real work. It attempts to specify the inherently vague and it sort of rambles. Marskell 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 

message: I'm going to remove this from the article (doesn't sound right). If this is true, please add back in and provide a reference:
A in many cuntries including all of north America, a law was passed in 1987. The law states that if a possesion of anyone is left at another individual's house for three months or more, the item is then in the power of the owner of the house. There was alot of contreversy abouth this law and even today it is not ecknowledged, however it does exist. Wikipedia brown 04:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 months? 

message: QUOTE (as of Arpil 19, 2015):
The intention to exclude others from the garage and its contents does not necessarily amount to the guilty mind of intending to possess stolen goods.
UNQUOTE
Something is missing. If this is an example in which there is "a" garage (which, on first appearance, would not be called "THE garage"), and the garage contains stolen goods, and there is a person who has an intent to "possess" the garage but has no knowledge that the garage contains stolen goods, why isn't all of that stuff, which is a necessary part of the premise, contained in the sentence? Did the sentence contain it at one time after which some miscreant deleted it? Please put it back. On the other hand since I'm just speculating (and can do nothing more as long as the sentence is so incomplete) I don't known for sure that the details I'm speculating to be missing ARE what's missing. It could be that something ELSE is what's missing and that the sentence is intended to be mean something else entirely. I can't tell. Hence this post.76.8.67.2 (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: This sentence
QUOTE:
Possession acquired without consent is a property right which the law protects.
UNQUOTE
appears so nonsensical I have to ask if it is vandalism. Possession acquired WITHOUT consent is protected by law? This is bizarre. You mean it is PROHIBITED by law, don't you? Or "is a BREACH of a property right which the law protects"? Also, it should be made clear whether "with consent" means the consent of the person who is losing possession or the consent of the person gaining possession. I find this entire article to be littered with incomplete thoughts.76.8.67.2 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possession of goods by robbery, fraud, or burglary is PROTECTED by law?

message: :In law, possession is the control a person's intentional exercises toward a thing.
It this supposed to say "possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing"? I'm hesitant to change it, not knowing the legal definition myself.
Piojo (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence is not grammatical