Talk:Possession (law)

Untitled note

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)[reply]

2002 edits

Isn't this just a dictionary definition, basically? Possibly an article could be written here on what the article terms "spiritual posession", but the other stuff doesn't seem to constitute potential encyclopedia context
--Robert Merkel 00:33 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

The overview of items of which possession may be illegal is not in a dictionary.
Patrick 12:29 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I removed the following:

Possession most often refers to the act of simple ownership.

Items of which possession may be illegal

guns - see also Ban on assault rifles, United States Constitution/Amendment Two
drugs
pornography, including but not limited to child pornography
possibly dangerous animals, such as a pit bull
wild animals, especially in cities or without special training

Here is why: The first sentence is simply wrong: in most cases, possession is not the same thing as ownership; in other words, possession usually refers to something other than ownership (and as Robert Merkel points out, if you do not know what the word possession means, you can look in the dictionary). The list of items is I think absurd in an encyclopedia article. Different jurisdictions may or may not make possession of different things legal or not. Simply to state this is silly. But is this article going to make a complete list, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, of things that people canot posess? That is absurd as well. Moreover, it is silly to put a list of things you cannot possess in an article on "possession." I can see discussin this issue of criminal or prohibited possession in separate articles on drugs, pornograqphy, guns, etc -- but a general article on possession seems dumb.
Slrubenstein —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 28 November 2002

I have improved the first sentence. It needs expansion, of course you are most welcome to work on that.
As answered above: the overview of items of which possession may be illegal is not in a dictionary.
I agree that discussing legal matters in an international encyclopedia is complex due to different laws in different countries, but that does not mean that nothing can be said on them, you can make remarks in terms of some/most/almost all countries; even a vaguer expression 'may be illegal' is meaningful, because many things are legal in all countries, such as the possession of a piece of bread.
Why is it silly to put a list of things you cannot possess in an article on possession? That is the place where it belongs, unless you make the list a separate article.
Additional separate articles are fine, this article gives an overview (extensions are welcomed).

Patrick 12:29 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

The following reformatted material replaces a contrib that, by interrupting another editors signed contribution, has the effect of forging that editor's signature onto work that is not his own.
Thus User:Slrubenstein should instead have begun, along these lines: In response to User:Patrick's contrib above:...
--Jerzy•t 07:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to,

I have improved the first sentence. It needs expansion, of course you are most welcome to work on that.

I do not see much of an improvement. I will not work on it, and here is why: I am not an expert on various theories or rules of possesion, so I am not qualified. This is an encyclopedia and to write an article one must be minimally qualified. This does not mean you have to be a PhD. (or, in this case, a lawyer or economist), but it does mean you have to know something about the topic beyond what any English-speaker knows. So far, you have not offered any evidence that you have any special knowledege of this complex topic. If you do, then by all means, you should work on it. If not, however, delete it and work on articles where you have something to contribute.

As to,

As answered above: the overview of items of which possession may be illegal is not in a dictionary.

~~And~~ I'd ay, "for obvious reasons," which apply to this encyclopedia as well.

As to,

I agree that discussing legal matters in an international encyclopedia is complex due to different laws in different countries, but that does not mean that nothing can be said on them, you can make remarks in terms of some/most/almost all countries; even a vaguer expression 'may be illegal' is meaningful, because many things are legal in all countries, such as the possession of a piece of bread.

Please read Les Miserables; the whole novel hinges on illegally possessing a loaf of bread.

As to,

Why is it silly to put a list of things you cannot possess in an article on possession? That is the place where it belongs, unless you make the list a separate article.

It is silly for the same reaqson that it would be silly, in an article on democracy, to provide a list of countries that are not democratic; or in an article on birds, to include a list of animals that are not birds. Like I said, make a contribution (if you have indeed any special knowledge) to the articles on guns, drugs, etc.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 November 2002

Prohibited items should probably be "List of prohibited items" or "List of restricted items". Even better, make it an article (rather than just a list) on why they are prohibited and where.
-- Tarquin 15:21 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Re "#REDIRECT Possession" at Has

Why is Has linked to this topic? Has is a city in Albania!!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.126.118 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2005

Page

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)[reply]

Why does 'have' link to this page? It's a verb and in most languages an important one, it should have an article comparable to the one 'to be' or 'copula'!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.178.74 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2006

3 months?

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)[reply]

Ownership, simple & al.

simple ownership is a valid descritption of ownership.

COPYRIGHTS Physical ownership, is sometimes called "SIMPLE OWNERSHIP" and means that you own a "copy" of the work; you own the medium on which the intellectual content is stored. Medium may include paper, computer disk, video tape, etc.

Whereas if you owned the copy and copyright it might be called "COMPLETE OWNERSHIP"

There is also the case where you owned the copyright but did not have possession.

REAL ESTATE you have fee SIMPLE OWNERSHIP - full title and all legal rights associated with a parcel of land and everything it contains, including minerals and archeological resources. Fee SIMPLE OWNERSHIP is also sometimes refered to as "COMPLETE OWNERSHIP" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirdPlayer (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 February 2007

Unclear sentence

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)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Possession of goods by robbery, fraud, or burglary is PROTECTED by law?

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)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Opening sentence is not grammatical

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)[reply]