Originally Posted by
DMF13
I know you're a bit desperate to justify your previous incorrect use of constructive possession, and your false claims there was caselaw that supported your incorrect use. There really was no reason other than that for your anecdote about the person who argued the TC case, or this entire post, but give it up already. You got it wrong, and yet you continue to "double down" on that error. As I said earlier, you weren't the one who started the problem, in general, or on the other thread in particular, you're just the one who won't quit, despite clearly being wrong on this topic.
The term "constructive possession" has a specific meaning. Anyone who actually believes things like that are important, like many here who claim they care about the "meaning" of things, such as those relating to legal issues, including the Constitution, should stop incorrectly using, or defending the incorrect usage of, a term that has a very clear, and widely accepted, definition, especially in places like the courts.
Alternatively, you can just say words/terms mean whatever you want, and whatever is convenient for you and your every whim, and their actual and accepted definitions are unimportant. I swear I've seen some people here complain about that approach, especially as it applies to legal issues.
You can continue to desperately try to justify your incorrect use of the term "constructive possession," and make snide comments about "Summon(ing) DMF13," or perhaps you could just admit you got it wrong, and the term "constructive possession" has nothing at all to do with the ability construct an object, and just let it go.