David Berkowitz said "that his neighbors dog was possessed by a demon and ordered him to kill". As per Wikipedia: "David Richard Berkowitz (born Richard David Falco; June 1, 1953), known also as the Son of Sam and the .44 Caliber Killer, is an American serial killer who pleaded guilty to eight separate shooting attacks that began in New York City during the summer of 1976"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz the record for is not from for this now recorded.
Fact, the other day on a commercial for David Berkowitz as shown on DISH Satellite television, such alarm from the blurted out in open to up a show? In aspect to this post today May 19th, 2018 does not come hinder to the information. I say explicitly that promotion has brought me to think of those words. As the smile on the face of Serial Killer Mr. David Berkowitz gave pause long ago, a catch and release in the eyes gave blinking no blink to the charge Mr. Berkowitz showed. To comprehend the day of his decade this reality of this Country came to term phrases, i.e. demon, possession.
To this the source of read is in fascination by most however I still think about those words of lever. His neighbors dog was possessed and the definition of possession is found with Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law). "Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."", to travel this posture and the smiling gargle of Serial Killer Mr. David Berkowitz at or during his media frenzy I wonder the advertisement shown on T.V. the other day.
Should I say that his cartridge of loaded bullet in choir to his mouth uttered that he lived in a neighborhood with both religious and non-religious characters would the public at-large consider their language of prowess? Shall the 'tongue' as often referred to by the Christian Religion gargle would scope load or blanket the bullet that strikes church services? Does the pew and a parishioner consider the lever of weight that a pulpit can deliver in manipulation of whom is what on the outskirts or the fringe of society by quoting or telling the church members their opinion of "stoop"?
To the findings and on this hem of no stitch to ask the carriage of a Nation that spouts 'Freedom of Religion' is the avenue or the freeway bouy scouted? Did the version or the King James Bible translated from Latin to the King's tongue make ready made Serial Killers too, or, is it the blame of cause? Is there some unknown harness of hatred that is traveling the 'bells & whistles' that regards this as a possibility or is it an overlook? Should the Town of entry march to the neighborhood of Serial Killer Mr. David Berkowitz's youth to once again stare or to for the first time look to the deception of what is a front door?
Possession is nine-tenths of the law
Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression
meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of
something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is
also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited
as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in
the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]
Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]
Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]
Contents
Analysis
The adage is not literally true, that by law the person in possession is presumed to have a nine times stronger claim than anyone else, but that "it places in a strong light the legal truth that every claimant must succeed by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of his antagonist's."[3] The principle bears some similarity to uti possidetis ("as you possess, so may you continue to possess"), which currently refers to the doctrine that colonial administrative boundaries become international boundaries when a political subdivision or colony achieves independence. Under Roman law, it was an interdictum ordering the parties to maintain possession of property until it was determined who owned the property.[4]Cases
In the Hatfield-McCoy feud, with testimony evenly divided, the doctrine that possession is nine-tenths of the law caused Floyd Hatfield to retain possession of the pig that the McCoys claimed was their property.[5] It has been argued that in some situations, possession is ten-tenths of the law.[6] While the concept is older, the phrase "Possession is nine-tenths of the law" is often claimed to date from the 16th century.[7] In some countries, possession is not nine-tenths of the law, but rather the onus is on the possessor to substantiate his ownership.[8]This concept has been applied to both tangible and intangible products.[9] In particular, "knowledge management" presents problems with regard to this principle.[10] Google's possession of a large amount of content has been the cause of some wariness due to this principle.[11] It has been said that there was a time in which the attitude towards rights over genetic resources was that possession is nine tenths of the law, and for the other tenth reliance could be made on the principle that biological resources were the heritage of mankind.[12]
Aboriginal people frequently encounter this principle.[13] There is some question as to whether the principle applies to Native American land claims.[14][15] It has been said that “squatter's rights” and “possession is 9/10ths of the law” were largely responsible for how the American west was really won.[16]
In anarcho-capitalist theory
Walter Block has stated, "Suppose that 100 slaves worked on the plantation, but only one heir of any of them, B, can now be found. Does B get the entire value of the landed estate (apart from the house), or only one percent of it. The answer is the latter. For possession is 9/10ths of the law. He who is the present land holder (W in our case) is always deemed to be the proper owner, unless evidence to the contrary can be adduced. But the claim of B, stemming from the work of his grandfather, B, can at most encompass what he, B, that is, contributed to the enhancement of the value of the property. The other ninety-nine percent of the value of this land will remain with W, until and unless other grandchildren of slaves come forth with proof of parentage."[17]Murray Rothbard noted that libertarians "conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor."[18]
No comments:
Post a Comment