Reasonableness is determined after the fact as well so you might have some splain’in to do.
In practice I’ve only known of thieves being held by force or gun point till the cops show up. I’m sure more than a few get shot for it though.
Do you have a cite that it’s your stuff and not the state’s stuff?
Irrelevant. read the law again. They are still their parents and covered by the law.
No it doesn’t. Read it again when you’re sober. 
That’s not correct at all. The Feds only said the sates have to prohibit sales to under 21, not anything else. Wisconsin does that and is in compliance with the law. There is no 'cut" to be had.
Read the rest of the thread. The clerk in this instance is not a thief.
So, you are saying that you think you can bring the clerk to the cops, but you wouldn’t call the cops on the clerk?
Seems easier, even if there were no legal concerns, to bring the cop to you.
Right, and most likely, when you frog march the clerk to the police station, that the legal system is not going to consider your actions reasonable.
It was a question, not an assertion. I did read the law, and it said parents or legal guardians (or spouses). Your parents are not your legal guardians when you are 18 (unless you have a disability that gives them extended guardianship over an adult child.), and so it is not entirely clear whether or not, as they are no longer responsible for your actions, whether or not they would be allowed to serve you.
For instance, if you get your 17 year old drunk, and they go out and have an accident, then you are entirely liable. You are liable for what your kid does, whether it is by your actions or not.
If your kid is 19, you are no longer liable for their actions. If you allow them to have a couple drinks, and they get in an accident, who is liable for that?
Also, does that mean that if you are adopted or in foster care, then once you turn 18, there is no one who may serve you (unless you are married to someone over 21)?
They may arguably cease to be your legal guardians when you turn 18, but they do not cease to be your parents. The phrase “parents or legal guardians” is true if at least one of the following is true: 1) parents 2) legal guardians. They may no longer be your legal guardians, but they are still your parents. So the “parents” part is true, meaning the whole phrase is true.
"…any underage person …who knowingly possesses or consumes alcohol beverages is guilty of a violation. "
Your quote:
original quote:
You cut out the exception that explains it…
Yes, it is Ok if you are accompanied by a parent etc.
It is not legal in general.
Originally Posted by **pkbites **
Here in Wisconsin it is legal, by statute for people under 21 to drink:
That is incorrect. It is only Ok if accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age. In general, it is NOT legal.
My post had a cite after the colon qualifying my statement, stating when my statement was so, not that it was so all the time. I’m baffled by the hair splitting here.
Do you have a cite that says that I have to own the things stolen from me?
I’m not gonna a frog march anyone anywhere. I’m saying that I’ve got the right to retrieve my stuff. If he wants to stop me from retrieving the thing he had no right to then that article puts him in the wrong, not me.
I read the thread. The clerk is a thief, and an asshole.
Can you site a case anywhere in the US where a clerk was prosecuted for theft for confiscating an ID they suspected to be fake?
If you want to choose Texas as your playground any attempt to use force against the clerk can be met with deadly force under the states ‘stand your ground law’ ie you go to grab her, she shoots you dead.
If you think a reasonable course of action to someone taking your ID is to drag them out of their store and down to the police station, I wish you luck. Maybe the jury of your peers for the list of crimes you’ll be charged under will have similar neanderthal beliefs.
Please explain and respond to my earlier post outlining what the definition of theft or larceny is. Just because you baldly declare that the clerk has committed theft does not make it so.
I’ve said for various and sundry other reasons why it is not a theft, but I disagree with you here.
Even if we assume (which I think is a valid assumption) that your driver’s license is technically the property of the state, you are clearly the caretaker of that license on behalf of the state until and unless the state uses their greater property interest to divest you of it. (However, I believe that ONLY Texas permits deadly force in the protection of property. All other states allow any reasonable force short of deadly force to protect property)
Third parties may assert the rights of others if the other person had a legal privilege. This is most evident in deadly force to protect the life of another. If someone puts my neighbor in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, I may use deadly force to stop it, just as he would be permitted to do so.
Likewise, if I look out the window and see my neighbor’s window busted out and see someone carrying his flat screen TV out the front door, I may use reasonable, but not deadly force, to stop the theft.
As an aside, this reasonable/deadly and life/property distinction gets blurred sometimes. If someone breaks into my house and is in the middle of stealing things, I may use deadly force, not to protect my property, but because of the default assumption that because a person broke into my house, I have a reasonable fear that they will harm me.
So, TLDR version, even though I don’t own the DL, I may assert the state’s right in keeping it from being stolen in much the same way that I can stop a purse snatcher. The judge isn’t going to say that because it wasn’t my purse that I couldn’t stop the theft. This is even more apparent if, say, I was holding my wife’s purse.
To expound more about property, as we learn in law school, it is not black and white. Property, as it is said, is a “bundle of sticks.” It is very rare (impossible in a more technically correct way) instance where one person has a 100% interest in something and nobody else has any interest.
Take my car, for example. My name is on the title and I have the legal power to drive it, sell it, junk it, put it in one of those mafia-like crushers, sell parts off of it, etc. Now let’s say that my neighbor asks to borrow it because his car is in the shop. I agree and now it is in his garage overnight.
My neighbor now has a possessory interest in the car that is superior to everyone else in the entire world, except me. However, his rights are limited. He may not sell the car, junk it, put it in a mafia-style crusher, or sell parts off of it. I reserve those rights, yet he has a limited property interest in driving it and keeping it in his sole possession. By my agreement, he has that one “stick” and I retain the others.
So let’s say that he has a dinner party and one of his guests really likes the car and decides to steal it. He finds the keys and drives off with it. Let’s also say that I am out of the country in the jungles of South America and cannot be reached.
If the neighbor goes to the police or the courts, they are not going to tell him to piss off out of there because he doesn’t “own” the car. In a legal sense, he owns the specific right to possess and drive the car and his guest has deprived him of that property right.
This is analogous to the situation where the state owns my DL yet allows me a limited license to use it to drive, to purchase booze and tobacco, to board a plane, enter a federal building, etc. If someone steals it (and again, the clerk in the above examples has not stolen it) then I have a legally enforceable right to get it back.
It seemed like potential theft in k9bfriender’s anecdote. The clerk put the ID in the register and then walked away, ignoring the customer. The clerk did eventually call the cops, who straightened out the issue, but only after getting annoyed. It seemed in that case that the clerk expected the customer to realize they had been “caught” and would leave, because the clerk gave no indication that they would contact the authorities or return the ID and ignored requests to return it. If the customer had indeed stopped asking and had themselves called the police, declaring that a clerk ignored requests to return the property, again I believe that it would constitute potential theft because in that case the clerk gave all indication they were trying permanently deprive the customer of their property.
I do say “potential” because my gut feeling is that if a cop showed up at the store and asked the clerk what was going on, the clerk would insist that the ID was fake, the cop would ask to see it, declare it real, and it would be returned with no charges filed.
Once again. I’m not saying I’m dragging anyone anywhere, and I doubt it would go well of I did.
I’m saying that if its theft(see below) then they are in the wrong, and depending on circumstance it could very well be theft. Display of a firearm in the commission of an offense is a felony. Stealing someone’s stuff and then killing them for trying to get it back is murder. Possession of a firearm in a place alcohol is served for on site consumption is also a crime here. Depending on where this clerk works.
I have no cite specifically for clerks taking IDs. I could probably find quite a few for “thief shot dead, no charges filed”. I doubt either matters much in the grand scheme of things.
As to my “neanderthal beliefs”. I feel like this statement was designed to insult my belief system, that you know next to nothing of, or maybe bolster your own opinion that your beliefs(whatever they are) are morally superior. Whatever you say.
Your argument that it’s not theft hinges on the clerks intent. If they put it in the drawer and ignore me that’s a pretty clear statement they intend to deprive me permanently as is simply pocketing it and demanding I leave, in my opinion. If they hold it and call the cops immediately to come clear this up it’s pretty obvious it’s not theft, then I wait around and get my stuff back. But your presuming their intent is to verify legitimacy which not supported by the circumstance of holding then ignoring the request for return, or even taking then demanding I leave.
Aren’t the police going to do what they do because a car has been stolen, regardless of what rights the reporter might have? I don’t think it matters that you told your neighbor he could borrow it here.
If I’m walking down the street and I witness someone stealing a car (let’s assume that it’s very obviously stolen) and call the police, are they going to say “it wasn’t your car, so we’re not going to do anything”?
If the clerk legitimately thinks that the license is fake, then it’s still not theft to attempt to deprive you of it permanently.
The fact that they don’t immediately call the cops is not relevant. They could easily plan to give it to a cop that they know makes regular rounds, or let the next manager handle it, or whatever.
Obviously, if you press the issue, they’re more likely to call the cops, because people who actually have fake IDs are not going to call the cops. And if it’s a real ID, then you should call the cops.
I would be that in the vast majority of cases like this, as soon as the person who has had the id taken from them takes out their phone and calls the police, the clerk has a sudden change of heart, because they now have new information.
But that would mean that their mistake of fact trumps my personal interest in my legitimately owned/possessed property.
Your bet is a good one but I’ll add that their job is to decide to sell to me or refuse, not seize IDs. Allowing clerks to seize every ID they think is fake seems a huge liability issue.
I’ll go further and say that if they think it’s fake the right thing to do is return it, refuse the sale and call the cops, who are much better equipt to make the proper decision.