Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 30

A question about Irish-British conflict

Hi, I am from Argentina and I don't understand very well this conflict. My question is if the Irish people and government from the Republic of Ireland support the acts of the IRA in Northern Ireland against Unionists. Thanks all. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that the IRA renounced armed conflict in 2005 and pledged to pursue peaceful political means to achieve its goals, your question really asks whether the people or government of the Republic support the political position of the Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The answer is that some people in the Republic, though probably not a majority, may be sympathetic to Sinn Fein, while others may be indifferent to politics in the North or sympathetic to other parties, such as the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The Republic's government takes a neutral position with regard to party politics in the North. If your question refers to the Troubles, which seem to have ended with the IRA's change of strategy in 2005, the government of the Republic certainly did not support, and in fact stated its opposition to the violent tactics of the IRA during that period. I can't cite any sources, but having spent some time in the Republic during the 1980s, I think that most people in the Republic were opposed to those violent tactics as well, though certainly many agreed with the IRA's stated goals of redressing discrimination against Catholics in the North and bringing about eventual reunification of the North with the rest of Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can also track the performance of Sinn Fein in the Irish general election, 2007, where they got under 7% of first votes, and earlier elections. I don't think they have ever got over 10% in the last 80 years. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that although the IRA have supposedly renounced the ways of violence, they have not been entirely peaceful recently. There's the 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting and also the policeman shot dead by a sniper in Craigavon, which for some reason does not have a Wiki article. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those were carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the group which is normally called the IRA, which is affilliated to Sinn Fein, and which has renounced violence). They were carried out respectively by the Real Irish Republican Army and the Continuity Irish Republican Army, small splinter organizations formed from splits in the IRA. Neither of these groups have renounced the armed struggle. The IRA proper has completely disarmed, and there is no evidence that it has in any way broken its commitment to stop fighting, or that it intends to do so. Algebraist 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, they're completely different. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Algebraist 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, your sarcasm is highly misplaced and misleading. The account given in this reply was entirely accurate until you muddied the waters. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the OP was motivated to ask his question by these recent events. So to ignore their existence in the reply is not providing the full picture.

Another way of putting it is that the Peace Process was entirely successful until the "Real" IRA muddied the waters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that characterisation, I would definitely agree with. Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA differ from their 'Continuity' and 'Real' counterparts in two important respects: PSF/PIRA have renounced the armed struggle, and they're influential enough for this to make a substantial (though admittedly not complete) difference. There's also some complicated political stuff about whether or not they recognise the Republic of Ireland, but that's fine detail. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is The Troubles in Craigavon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting support for Sinn Fein has increased in recent years, however that seems to be more dependent on the fact that SF is finding its role as a left-of-centre opposition party within the Republic (and lifting issues such as campaign against Lisbon Treaty) rather than a boost in support for republicanism in the North. --Soman (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Name the novel: (young adult) juvenile delinquents, prison, psychology experiment

I'm trying to remember the title and author of a book I read years ago. Here's what I remember:

It was published some time between 1973 and 1980, but probably around 1977.

I seem to recall it was set in the UK, but I'm not positive about that.

The story was about a group of teenage boys who find themselves in a "prison without keepers", with no memory of how they got there. It ultimately develops that the boys are juvenile delinquents in an experimental rehabilitation program, and that one of the boys is a "mole" working for the unseen keepers. Think "House of Stairs" meets "A Clockwork Orange".

Thanks in advance! Skyraider (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As it may have been written and published in the UK, try searching the British Library online catalogue for novels published in 1977, to start off with. Any ideas you have about any words in the title etc may help you find it. If it was a popular paperback it may have been published by New English Library or Corgi or so on, helping you to narrow it down. It sounds like it may have been addressed to a youth audience, so try Puffin or other youth labels of the time. 78.145.24.168 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ten stages of Jesus' public life and teachings

What are the ten stages of Jesus' public life and teachings? - Vikramkr (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask the person who insists there were exactly ten distinct stages. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. Thanks for that. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is helpful. I'll explain in more detail, just in case you were being sarcastic. How many stages there were in Jesus' life (or anyone's life, for that matter), and the exact names of each is an utterly subjective matter of opinion. Therefore, if you want to get the same answer as some authority, then you'd best ask them, as any other authority (including Wikipedia) is likely to come up with a different answer. We get many such questions here, and, alas, the answer must always be the same. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In medieval iconography, the life of Christ was often divided into a number of short episodes (not necessarliy ten, though). Have a look at Life of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though this does appear to be a homework question, here's my best shot at helping out. Jesus's life could be divided any number of ways. If you read the gospels, distinct phases are described in detail or implied, such as Pre-Birth (John 1 makes it clear that Jesus has existed since Creation, thus before his birth), Infancy, Childhood (the episode where Mary and Joseph left Jesus behind in the Temple comes to mind), Young Adulthood, pre-baptism (implied, since the next time we see Jesus is at age 30 going to visit John the Baptist), Wandering in the Desert, and his ministry. Generally, his Ministry can also be divided into periods: One system of dividing it up I have seen divides it roughly into 3 years: The gathering phase, where he built up his following of disciples; the teaching phase, including most of his parables and the Sermon on the Mount; and the opposition phase, where he is hounded by the Pharisees, Saducees, etc. After this, one could count his trial and crucifixion as a seperate phase, and finally the Risen Christ as the final phase. If I count my accounting, that's 10 phases, but that's just my own personal analysis; depending on which doctrine or dogma you are following, different strains of Christianity may choose to divide up Jesus's life differently. My suggestion, since this is your homework question, and I am mostly making this up as I go along, is to read the textbook that you got in whatever class this question came from. The question is worded to basically be a reading comprehension class. I would bet better than even money that your textbook contains the phrase "The life of Jesus can be divided into 10 phases, and they are..." or something similar. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the 10 in Jayron's analysis:

1) Pre-Birth

2) Infancy

3) Childhood

4) Young Adulthood

5) Wandering in the Desert

6) Ministry: Gathering phase

7) Ministry: Teaching phase

8) Ministry: Opposition phase

9) Trial and Cruxifixion

10) Risen Christ

But, of course, bear in mind that these may not be the same 10 your teacher has in mind. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting division, but I note the questioner says the ten divisions of Jesus' public life. The first four wouldn't count under that. I guessing he's looking for a more detailed division of the subjects of Jesus' teaching. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See also, Stations of the cross for a related concept. Matt Deres (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! - Vikramkr (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet medal

Here are the obverse and reverse sides of a recently acquired Soviet medal. Can anyone tell me more about the medal's age, what it was awarded for and what the inscription reads? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The inscription is Вооружённые Силы СССР (around the edge): За 20 лет безупречной службы , which translates as "Armed Forces of the USSR: For 20 years of irreproachable/exemplary service". Not quite what you'd hoped for, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, but I don't quite get where you're coming from with your last bit. I wasn't hoping for/expecting anything, really. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Jack was implying that if you had hoped for a rarity worth a mint, you'd be disappointed. Steewi (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an entry for it on Awards_and_decorations_of_the_Soviet_Union (it is one of many "long service medals" created in 1958). That doesn't really pin down when your specific medal was made, though. --140.247.11.14 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the Medal for Immaculate Service established on 25 January 1958 by the joint decree of the Interior Minister, Minister of Defense and the KGB chief. See ru:Медаль «За безупречную службу» for more information. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a certain lady's conception, we don't usually refer to abstract things like service as being "immaculate"; that's usually reserved for tangible objects, the presentation of a room/house, a person's dress/coiffure, etc. I think "exemplary", "outstanding" or "irreproachable" would be more appropriate translations. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

richest US president

Who was the richest US president? I understand that this might be difficult because an 1820 dollar will have a different value the a 1960 dollar, but what is the best guess? Also, who was the richest Vice President? If they are the same person, who is the richest VP who was never president? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Forbes magazine, George Washington was the richest U.S. President.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Nelson Rockefeller as the richest VP ? StuRat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would have guessed Kennedy for President - which is wrong. So, I assume my guess at Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President is also wrong. It is hard to mentally convert 1800's fortunes into 1900's fortunes. -- kainaw™ 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Forbes seems way off base claiming Washington was richer than modern presidents. When his estate was valued in 1800, it came to $500,000, per Forbes. Per [http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi an inflation adjustment calculator, that would be just over $6 million in 2007 dollars, leaving him far down on the list compared to 20th century presidents. Edison (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

12x inflation over the last 200 years seems way too low. I wonder what they are using to calculate inflation? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The author of that web site says "If you liked the Inflation Calculator, you might enjoy my new web site, Smugopedia: Pretend you know better. I'd love to hear what you think of it! " So prove that you know better and document a figure higher than 12 x. Edison (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept the challenge. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GROWTH1850.JPG, per capita income in 1800 was about $190. I do not know if this number includes slaves or not, but this is a very crude approximation anyways. Therefore, GW had 2630 man years of wealth. In 2005, the per capita income is $23,484 found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income Therefore, GW's $500,000 would now be worth $62,000,000, not $6,000,000. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that they completely omitted the Forbes fortune that John Kerry received. It appears to claim that all of Kerry's money came from his wife and not his own family. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it flubbed other items to achieve the results the editor wanted to achieve. -- kainaw™ 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(1800) $500,000 is a great deal more than (2007) $6,000,000. Was that intended as $60,000,000 2007 dollars, which would be more like it?--Wetman (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think prices have gone up more than 12 times just in my lifetime. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, George Washington couldn't have bought a pocket calculator for double his net worth, and you can buy one for less than $10. - Nunh-huh 05:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he could legally buy a slave and you can't ... so there. B00P (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. According to this site, the 2008 value of Washington's $500,000 could be $8,800,000 (using the CPI) or $15,000,000,000 (using the relative share of the GDP) or various values in between (by other measuring sticks). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if I remember previous Forbes lists correctly, the rankings are not just a simple inflation conversion, but also take into account how wealthy a person was relative to his era. In other words, someone who was worth a million when there were few millionaires would rank higher than someone worth a million at a time when millionaires were plentiful. George Washington had the economic stature of someone worth 15 billion today. Keep a look out for those rich widows, guys! —Kevin Myers 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How you measure inflation makes all the difference. The best-guess CPI from 1800 to 2008 was about 1.3% p.a., which works out to almost 1,500% over 208 years. So, $500,000 becomes $7.95 million. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Claiming GW was far richer than modern presidents because he was far richer than the average person of his era is misleading. The leader of a present-day third world country might live 100 times better than the average person in his country, but that does not make him richer than politicians or Wall Street tycoons in developed countries. In colonial times most people lived in tiny cabins and grew their own food. They were literally "dirt poor." I prefer comparing the valus of his holdings and applying the 1.3 CPI adjustment, or whatever figure has support from economists who have indexed the changing value of the dollar or pound over the years. Edison (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to compare the price of a ton of tobacco then with a ton of tobacco now and use that for an accurate measurement? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That could be done, but why should tobacco be taken as the standard, rather than anything else? Inflation is usually measured using much more complex methods. Algebraist 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was thinking GW owned a tobacco plantation, so it might be an appropriate measure. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it take for a country to be recognised as independent?

I mean why does Kosovo's recognition present such a problem whilst East Timor and Montenegro were no problem in terms of recognition in the international community? Does a country have to be recognised by every individual nation or just the United Nations?--WhettRhett (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See Sovereignty and Self-determination for history and examples. Kosovo status process is specific to Kosovo's current situation. Unfortunately no country will agree to a simple, straightforward list of conditions for soveriegnty; as you can see from Political Status of Taiwan, every case is completely tangled up in the politics of the day. Tempshill (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One difference between Kosovo and the countries you mention is recognition by the states of which they were previously a part: despite allegations (true or false, I've not a clue) of Indonesian military involvement in the post-vote chaos in East Timor, Jakarta officially recognised independence; meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro had for some time been in a situation where either one could leave, and Montenegro followed that process carefully, so Serbia recognised. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The modern (post World War II) international consensus on independence focuses on the principle of self determination. The principle of self determination was originally envisaged to apply only to colonies of the European powers - i.e. countries that should or were independent, but for one reason or another no longer govern themselves.

As a result, contrary to popular misconceptions, the right of self determination does not mean that any province, town, or religious group could just declare themselves independent. Rather, the right of self determination is available only to a "people", and a "people" is pretty much the whole of a state (present or former), or colony, or other non-self-governing territory. However, it does not cover integral parts of a state that does not fit into one of the above categories.

In the examples you stated, Montenegro was always its own Republic - it had been part of the federal Yugoslavia, which from the start was a federation of previously or theoretically autonomous states. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, though Montenegro for a time stuck with Serbia, they were still each a participant state in a federation, not part of the same unitary state. East Timor, though never really independent itself, was always separate from the rest of what became Indonesia because it was a Portuguese, not Dutch, colony. Upon de-colonisation, self determination kicks in to say that East Timor could decide to be independent, to become part of Portugal, or to join Indonesia if so the East Timorese so chose.

The other examples raised in this discussion are different. Kosovo, the case you referred to, is different from Montenegro because Kosovo was always (well, in modern times anyway) a province of Serbia. That is to say, Kosovo was not a state participating in the federation of Yugoslavia. It was an integral part of Serbia. As a result, strictly speaking they would have no clear right of self-determination. It is by no means straight forward to expect other countries' recognition of its independence in such a case. Of course, just because a province (like Kosovo) has no automatic right to become independent, that does not mean that other countries will not recognise the fact of its independence if they so choose. That, however, is largely a matter of diplomacy.

Taiwan is an even more complicated murky kettle of fish. To sum it up, the government that rules Taiwan still officially claims to be the government of all China; the government that rules mainland China makes the same claim. A significant faction in Taiwan advocate that Taiwan should become independent. However, they are cowed by military threats from mainland China. Internationally, they do not have any support from other governments because, like Kosovo, Taiwan has always been a province (or part of a province)in recent centuries - usually of China, but for 50 years part of Japan. There is no automatic right of self-determination for Taiwan, so if or when it does declare independence, it would not be able to count straight forward recognition of its independence, somewhat similar to the case for Kosovo.

All of the above is discussion about the question of being recognised as independent. There is a preceding question: whether the country is independent. Generally there are two views on this. One, the more objective view, is to take the criteria of the Montevideo Convention; a state that satisfies these criteria is, without more, a state. The other, the constitutive theory of statehood, says that a putative state only becomes a sovereign state when it is recognised by the international community. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard once that the Republic of Minerva complained to the World Court about the forcible annexation to Tonga, and was rejected on the grounds that sovereignty cannot be created from nothing but must be derived from a pre-existing state; which invites the question, what was the first sovereign state? —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, sovereignty cannot be created from nothing? Do you have the name of the case? I'm not sure that the Republic of Minerva has standing (law) to be a party to a case in the International Court of Justice. Was the case brought on its behalf by a state? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty and independence are not the same thing. Take Australia. On 1 January 1901, the 6 British colonies federated as the Commonwealth of Australia. Was this now a sovereign nation? Arguably not. There is a view that the 6 colonies merely united to become a single colony, a "super-colony" if you like, and we were represented internationally not by Australians but by Britons; the first Australian Ambassador was not appointed for decades. Were we independent? Definitely not. The British government still had effective veto over any laws passed by the Australian Parliament, and the appointment of Governors-General was subject to the advice of the British Prime Minister, not the Australian Prime Minister. James Scullin put a stop to that in 1930. The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave the Dominions some real sovereignty but the precise date of Australia's sovereignty has been argued for years, some saying it occurred in 1920 (?) when we were accepted by the League of Nations as a sovereign state, others favouring other dates. The Australia Act 1986 brought us closer to independence than ever before. This has usually been characterised as "cutting the remaining constitutional links" between Australia and the UK - but some would argue that while ever we continue to have a monarch who is not an Australian and does not live here, and while ever her representative the Governor-General can theoretically be anyone at all (Bill Clinton, Alberto Fujimori, Penelope Cruz, Boris Yeltsin before he died ...), then we're still not truly, truly independent. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bank robberies in the USA

If someone steals a bicycle from the lobby of a bank while its rider is inside, would federal law consider that a bank robbery? Don't take this as a request for legal advice: I'm the bicyclist, not the would-be robber. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This link has the US Code definition. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I didn't know where to look. I'm the owner of the bicycle, so it's not in the bank's care; and as I paid somewhat over $100 for the bicycle several years ago (thus wear-and-tear depreciation), it's surely not over $1000. I guess it's only simple theft or whatever the local law calls it here. Hopefully I'll never need to see the results happen in an actual case :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; and I'm sorry to hear about the theft. It's possible, by the way, that the law in your state has a broader definition of bank robbery, though I don't really know if individual states ever bother to enact laws specifically about bank robbery, since it's already covered by the federal government. Tempshill (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd think it was bank robbery... the key aspect of bank robbery is that you are robbing the bank. Robbing individuals inside a bank, while theft, is certainly not bank robbery. A judge would laugh it out of the courtroom as such; if you tell a cop about it in that way, he'll just not take you seriously. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the definition in a particular jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction firstly makes a distinction between robbery and bank robbery, it's not hard to see that in some places, robbery + location in a bank = bank robbery. If you marched into a bank, pointed a gun at everyone and told all the customers to hand over the cash they are about to deposit, then substantively it's not too dissimilar to taking money from the counter.

And no - robbing a customer inside a bank is not just "theft". It's still robbery. In general, larceny + assault = robbery. Because of the special status of financial institutions, many jurisdictions create a special count of robbery + financial institution = bank robbery to give them extra protection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, use common sense. Claiming that someone had robbed a bank because they took your bike out of a bank lobby is just absurd. There are limited situations where the context changes the severity of the crime (e.g. speeding in a school zone) but there's no sensible reason that the fact that the bike as removed from the bank lobby makes it equivalent to holding up a bank (which, as crimes go, affects far more people than, say, just robbing most other random private establishments—hence it often gets its own special category). In the lack of any evidence that there is a law that would provide for stealing private customer property from a bank lobby as being "bank robbery" I see absolutely no reason to assume it ought to be. It does not follow any sensible legal logic. (And no, I don't think holding up customers in a bank is "bank robbery," anymore than holding up customers in a supermarket would be "supermarket robbery." The key point about bank robbery is that you are robbing the bank—a collective good of pooled wealth.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, common sense isn't how law works, though I gather you're new to Law. To give you just examples off the top of my head: look up "mail fraud" to see all kinds of things people have been prosecuted for just because it incidentally involved mailing an envelope across state lines. Abortion is legal (roe v. wade) because of a woman's right to privacy. Look up RICO, which is laws passed against racketeering: have been used for all kinds of things. When The Simpsons has Ned Flanders serving jury duty on a real chestnut of a case, where a pedestrial was run over on a traffic island (or something like that) and Ned says "they want to try it as a maritime offense" (maritime = at sea; traffic island, get it?) it's 'funny because it's true' -- not for that PARTICULAR case, but all the time. Just all the time. If you study law at all, even for a week, you will see that law does not work they way you think it does -- not by a long shot. 94.27.194.165 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Using USA terminology) Larceny would be the better term. If it is an event defined as taking away personal property without the intent of returning it, then it is larceny. Robbery implies a confrontation. If the criminal took the bike without confronting the owner, it is not robbery. Therefore, claiming bank robbery is not correct since the term "robbery" is not correct. I am, of course, assuming that the criminal did not assault the bike owner when taking the bike. If that happened, I assume it would have been noted in the question. This brings up another note on larceny. It is difficult to prove in court when the person keeps the stolen item. If the criminal has the item in his or her possession, the criminal can claim that it was being borrowed, not stolen. Only when it is sold/given away is larceny easy to prove. -- kainaw™ 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those not familiar with the details of legal terminology, I'll clarify that assault doesn't require an actual attack, threatening an attack is sufficient. The issue with claiming to be just "borrowing" the stolen goods is why the UK introduced a new offence, "taking without ownser's consent", TWOC (primarily to deal with joy riding, I think). --Tango (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In Australia we also have a raft of lesser property offences that sidestep the "intention to permanently deprive/taking & carrying away" parts of larceny, things like fraudulent misappropration. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)