If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.

Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
authorities.

Brian Smith wrote:
>
> "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of stolen
> > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> them
> > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible our
> > laws are different.
>
> As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items were
> stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit, for
> five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are not
> cool to the touch.
>
> --
> Brian
> www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.

Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
authorities.

Brian Smith wrote:
>
> "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of stolen
> > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> them
> > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible our
> > laws are different.
>
> As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items were
> stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit, for
> five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are not
> cool to the touch.
>
> --
> Brian
> www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.

Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
authorities.

Brian Smith wrote:
>
> "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of stolen
> > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> them
> > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible our
> > laws are different.
>
> As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items were
> stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit, for
> five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are not
> cool to the touch.
>
> --
> Brian
> www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.

Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
authorities.

Brian Smith wrote:
>
> "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
> > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of stolen
> > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> them
> > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible our
> > laws are different.
>
> As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items were
> stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit, for
> five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are not
> cool to the touch.
>
> --
> Brian
> www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

"Randolph" <trash@junkmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FE24C24.96E4535F@junkmail.com...
> If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
> regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
> that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
> prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
> is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.
>
> Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
> he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
> authorities.

And, you've just opened a hole in the stolen parts supply chain, and it will
be filled.

Maybe with *your* rims.

> Brian Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > >
> > > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of
stolen
> > > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> > them
> > > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible
our
> > > laws are different.
> >
> > As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items
were
> > stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> > important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit,
for
> > five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are
not
> > cool to the touch.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> > www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

"Randolph" <trash@junkmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FE24C24.96E4535F@junkmail.com...
> If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
> regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
> that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
> prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
> is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.
>
> Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
> he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
> authorities.

And, you've just opened a hole in the stolen parts supply chain, and it will
be filled.

Maybe with *your* rims.

> Brian Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > >
> > > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of
stolen
> > > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> > them
> > > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible
our
> > > laws are different.
> >
> > As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items
were
> > stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> > important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit,
for
> > five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are
not
> > cool to the touch.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> > www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

"Randolph" <trash@junkmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FE24C24.96E4535F@junkmail.com...
> If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
> regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
> that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
> prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
> is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.
>
> Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
> he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
> authorities.

And, you've just opened a hole in the stolen parts supply chain, and it will
be filled.

Maybe with *your* rims.

> Brian Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > >
> > > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of
stolen
> > > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> > them
> > > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible
our
> > > laws are different.
> >
> > As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items
were
> > stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> > important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit,
for
> > five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are
not
> > cool to the touch.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> > www.accesswave.ca/~orion

 

"Randolph" <trash@junkmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FE24C24.96E4535F@junkmail.com...
> If the rims are stolen and you are caught, they will confiscate the rims
> regardless of whether or not you knew they were stolen. If they feel
> that you should have understood that they were stolen you can be
> prosecuted for possession of stolen property. From you posting here it
> is obvious that the "should have understood" test is met.
>
> Another point is that if the original owner spots you and your hot rims
> he might decide to confront you with a tire arm rather than call the
> authorities.

And, you've just opened a hole in the stolen parts supply chain, and it will
be filled.

Maybe with *your* rims.

> Brian Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Sean Donaher" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:VBqEb.15277$IF6.673068@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > >
> > > Yeah, but like I said, in order to be charged with possession of
stolen
> > > property, they have to prove you knew they were stolen. Simply having
> > them
> > > is not enough. Keep in mind, I'm in Canada so I suppose it's possible
our
> > > laws are different.
> >
> > As far as I know, 'they' don't have to prove that you knew the items
were
> > stolen, that is irrelevant. The fact that the items are stolen is the
> > important part. A person buying a set of rims worth a grand and a bit,
for
> > five hundred dollars, should be smart enough to know that the rims are
not
> > cool to the touch.
> >
> > --
> > Brian
> > www.accesswave.ca/~orion