05-28-2003, 01:57 PM
|
#45
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Actually Cerek - yes. If the source of the money is sauceman's, and he is of age (18), then it is theft whether pr0n, CDs, games, or drugs were taken. The only arguement that a parent has in the case of drugs is "Be glad I didn't have you arrested". Everything else is legal for him to own.
If this were in fact the case, then the federal government would not have the right to seize the parents house if the drugs belonged to the kid..but that ain't the way it's played in the real world.
I agree that the SF had every right to discipline, but destroying something that sauceman bought (assuming that they are destroyed and not just confiscated), for whatever reason is inexcusable. Just for comparison, what if sauceman had bought a car, and the SF took it to a junkyard or sold it without sauceman's permission? It shouldn't matter it the item(s) in question cost $1 or $10,000. This is wrongful destruction of property.
If Sauceman were not age 18 then he couldn't have legally entered a contract to buy the car in the first place. If you want to push the fact that he is 18 but still living at home, then you can say that the legal guardians are within their rights to toss every piece of his possessions and himself out on the lawn the day he turns 18. You don't see this happen much...more likely they are gracious enough to let him graduate first...then toss him out. That being the case, said person should be gracious enough to obey the rules of the domicile. Still inour current society the parent is responsible for the kid untill he graduates highschool or reaches age 18.
DISCLAIMER: As MagiK said, this is only one side of the story.
|
|
|
|
|