*ahem*[url =link]linkname[ /url]*ahem*
[not a legal expert]Sounds like the crux of the problem is that if he'd had an I.D. and signed for it, he could have cashed in the ticket himself, he just let fear get the better of him. As for the legality of it, might have to do with both federal and GA state law.[/not a legal expert]
Are there any legal experts here? I thought that any wealth gained as a consequence of committing a crime couldn't be retained by criminals.
If that's true, then what's the issue here?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44257177#44257177
His crime was being here illegally. His winning the money was not the result of a crime. If he had gave someone money to buy it for him, how I don't know, and the ticket had won he would still have rights to the money per a verbal contract.
Unless there is a law saying that you have to be a citizen to win the money then he should get the money.
Thread title: A sense of entitlement and just how bad it can get
Hmmm...not seeing the indignation. The guy risked his money, same as everyone else. Pay him...then deport him.
If i speed on the way to a race track and put a winning bet on the horse a the cop is dragging me away , i can keep the money because making the bet itself isn't the crime.
And how is this a sense of entitlement?
Other than in the sense that he bought a winning ticket, he should be entitled to the proceeds.
And remember, this isn't just a sense of entitlement...it's "just how bad it can get."
Yay xenophobia-disguised-as-respect-for-the-law. Unfortunately that looks to be where this thread is heading...
Perhaps the OP was referring to the boss who not only knowingly hired an illegal immigrant but then decided to steal his lotto winnings? If illegal immigrants had basic rights and had to be paid and treated like regular citizens you wouldn't have crooked business owners looking to hire and exploit them.
If that is the case, my apologies to the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe he is.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you a lawyer?
If he was not here illegally, he would not have bought the ticket (Georgia lottery tickets aren't for sale in Guatamala). So, his winnings are a result of his committing a crime.Uh...that's not how reasoning in general works, much less how legal reasoning works.
That's what I tell people...
Are you a lawyer?
Yes, he is.
OH SNAP.
If he was not here illegally, he would not have bought the ticket (Georgia lottery tickets aren't for sale in Guatamala). So, his winnings are a result of his committing a crime.
My head...you're hurting it.
My head...you're hurting it.
That's your sense of entitlement, thinking that you somehow DESERVE to have him not hurt your head. You damn un-American commies need to learn that a good head-stompin' is what makes this nation destined by God to be the awesomest. The apostles Paul and Mark both wrote that in the Constitution, you know.
Okay, that's what I was looking for.Where is the line between, for example, a Serial Killer writing a tell all book and making a profit from it and a guy who speeds on the way to a horse track to buy a winning racing ticket?
When did the Serial Killer write the book?
I mean if it's after he's been acquitted of the crime then he's still clear from criminal proceedings on the crime he was originally charged with (though he might have to stand trial for perjury).
In the second case did he get caught (the speeder)? If not it's no crime happened unless you can prove after the fact that he sped on his way to the track.
Honestly both of these questions are nonsensical since they don't provide enough information and have nothing to do with the case at hand.
Regardless of if the man speeds to the track that has no bearing on his buying a winning racing ticket, or the proceeds of that ticket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My head...you're hurting it.That's your sense of entitlement, thinking that you somehow DESERVE to have him not hurt your head. You damn un-American commies need to learn that a good head-stompin' is what makes this nation destined by God to be the awesomest.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, that's what I was looking for.Where is the line between, for example, a Serial Killer writing a tell all book and making a profit from it and a guy who speeds on the way to a horse track to buy a winning racing ticket?
I'm a lawyer, not your lawyer.
Besides, there's no bright line when it comes to proximate cause. If you're honestly curious (as opposed to trying to troll out a fight on immigration), check your good friend wikipedia. It's probably as reliable as a random person on the internet claiming to be a lawyer.
That post does nothing except give you a vague (and probably much needed) sense of scoring points.
Actually, the sense was pretty definite.
The question is "when is it legal to make a profit as an indirect consequence of committing a crime and when is it not?"
The two examples I gave were to establish the two ends of the spectrum in that question.
In the one case, a Serial Killer, having been found guilty and sitting in prison, writes a tell all book which makes a profit. Is he allowed to keep that profit?
In the second case, the speedster gets caught with one of those automated roadside cameras on his way to the race track.
That's a lot better but still not quite enough information -- for example on the second one: Could the gambler in question still have bought the winning ticket without having sped? For example is this his fifth bet of the day or his first where if he hadn't sped he would have been five minutes too late to have bought the ticket that he won on?
Also there's the question of technicality versus reasonableness -- did the gambler win 10 dollars on a bet he just barely got to make because he sped or did he win 10,000 dollars? In the case of 10 dollars it's less likely to even make it to court since it's simply not worth the time and effort.
As to the book -- did the serial killer write it himself? Did he get the editing and what not done? Was the book itself legally made?
If it was it's no worse than if he hadn't committed the crime that he has written about. Doing the crime or not has no bearing on the book being written other than where the book will be placed on the shelf in a bookstore.
The question becomes "Could he have written this book without having committed the crime?" If the answer is yes then it's not profits from the crime but profits from writing the book.
Now in civil court he might still lose the money made to the victims' families... but civil court is completely different than criminal court.
So, the only legal expert in this thread doesn't want to give his legal opinion.I have no interest in hearing the opinions of people whose opinion is of no more value than my own.
READ: I have no clue what I'm talking about and don't actually want to know or discuss it -- I want to be spoon fed by someone else that claims (on the internet) to have more expertize than I claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the only legal expert in this thread doesn't want to give his legal opinion.
I'm sure he'd be happy to give his legal opinion, if you were to pay his hourly rates for it.
I'm sure he'd be happy to give his legal opinion, if you were to pay his legal fee.
There's that @#$@#$ sense of entitlement again.
