Reply to Lochte Robbery Story: True or False

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Lochte Robbery Story: True or False"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I, like many regulars on DCUM, am a licensed attorney. Robbery is a specific intent crime. You must have the specific intent to 'steal that which is not yours by threats of violence'. In this case, the security officers were seeking payment for the damage to the gas station. That was there INTENT for legal purposes. There WAS NO ROBBERY under US law. I cannot speak to Brazilian law.

They negotiated a deal with these people. There was no 'robbery'. As a lawyer, it is laughable to hear the repeated chanting of this when there is NO legal basis for it. NONE.[/quote]

OK, I'm a lawyer too, but come on now.  Maybe it's not robbery, but it's not legal.  If the mailman intentionally knocks my mailbox off my house, I chase him down the street, pull a gun on him, and make him pay me $100 for the damages, are you saying that's legal? The answer is clearly, no.  Maybe it's not robbery, but it's a crime (but I'm a civil lawyer, so honestly I don't know what crime it is).  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics