Can you legally move a dead body to preserve it as evidence?

A fisherman is heading upstream in his boat, and sees a human corpse float past. Obviously even if it wasn't murder, it still warrants a 911 call because it was a death. The river however, is steadily moving the body away. Can the fisherman move the body and avoid legal jeopardy because the intent was to preserve it as evidence? You can make other scenarios I'm sure, but I chose this one as an example. Basically, the concept here is that doing nothing will possibly result in the total destruction of the body/evidence.

united-states criminal-law murder investigation

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...

You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like "am I free to go" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...


Why did this US prosecutor keep asking whether documents would refresh a witness's memory?

Background I served on a jury during a criminal trial in the United States several years ago. There was a strangely formal interaction that repeated itself a few times during the trial. The prosecutor, while holding some document, would ask a question which required the witness to recall some specific detail. The witness would reply "I don't remember." The prosecutor would then ask "Would looking at [some document] refresh your memory?", to which the witness would answer "Yes." The prosecutor would then hand the document to the witness, who would look at it and then answer the question. It's obvious that the prosecutor already knew the question wouldn't be answerable without reference to the report or document - that's why they were holding it. But then why perform the dance of "do you recall" / "no" / "would this refresh your memory" / "yes"? The Question It's clear the witness needs the document to answer the prosecutor's question, so what's the value in the prosecutor asking the witness the question the first time without the document? Disclaimer ( it may be that this was simply this prosecutor's way of phrasing questions, rather than a feature of the United States criminal judicial system. If that's the case this question won't be answerable, since it calls for knowing the mindset of a specific individual. If so, let me know and I'll delete it ) Further information In the real-life situation I found myself in, the witness was for the prosecution. However, I'm equally interested in answers ( such as hszmv's ) that explain why the adversarial lawyer might also use this technique, if relevant.

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...

united-states Witnesses are generally confined to giving testimony from their own personal memory; most of the time, they can't read a statement into the record or just tell the jury to go look at some other piece of evidence. But this creates problems when a witness knows an important fact but doesn't remember it when she takes the stand. Maybe she counted exactly how much money she stuffed in the robber's bag as she was doing it, and she wrote it down as soon as he fled, but a year later, she can't remember that it was $93,736.45. But the...

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...


Why and when would an attorney be handcuffed to their client?

While reading about the trial of Hans Reiser I came across this peculiar sentence: On Monday, July 7, 2008, Reiser led police to Nina's shallow grave in the Oakland Hills. Reiser's attorney, William Du Bois, who was handcuffed to Reiser and accompanied by a heavy police guard to the site, said that the remains were found buried on the side of a hill […] (Originally reported by SFGate ) I find this very strange for multiple reasons: The attorney is not legally responsible for the defendant's safety or security. The attorney is free to leave at any time. The attorney is not required to be armed and can not be expected to defend himself from a violent defendant …nor can he be expected to physically restrain the defendant if necessary. If the heavy police guard has to intervene, having an innocent civilian chained to the target must make their job much more difficult in case the defendant has to be subdued by force. Why and when would this be standard practice, and who would order that? Is it something that the Judge would order, or would the attorney himself have to suggest it? † † Unfortunately we can not ask him personally since, while researching the question, I found that he recently passed away .

This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the "expert" witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time......

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned Can the employer legally keep his last check and send the employee a bill for the remainder ? No, unless (1) the employee resigned and (2) his resignation does not amount to constructive termination . The employer may withhold the remaining $7,000 only if the employee did not meet the condition of " 30 days of employment with xxxxx ". Absent any language to the contrary, the requirement of " 1-year commitment " is to be construed as the consideration expected from the employee (namely, " not to quit ") in...

My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...


If a shop prices all items extremely high and applies a "non-criminal discount" at checkout, will shoplifters get prosecuted based on the high price?

I came across this sign online that states that in the store, all items are marked at $951, with "non-criminal discounts" applied only for paying customers. The sign suggests that this is to ensure that shoplifters will be prosecuted for grand theft under California Penal Code 487 PC , according to which the threshold for grand theft is $950. I can't verify the post itself, but regardless - would this actually work? If a shoplifter were caught, could they be prosecuted based on the marked price of $951, even though noone actually has to pay that price, or would the actual price at checkout be considered in the prosecution? While the sign itself is specific to California, I'm interested in different legal systems as well. (I'm also interested if such pricing would be even legal in itself, but I want to limit my post to one question.)

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

california No, I don't think so. California's grand theft statute, Penal Code Section 487 (which you already linked) consistently uses the word "value" rather than "price" (emphasis mine): Grand theft is theft committed in any of the following cases: (a) When the money, labor, real property, or personal property taken is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), except as provided in subdivision (b). Earlier in that title, Section 484(a) says: In determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test, and in determining...

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...


USA: Is "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer generally necessary?

Is it legally necessary to disclaim "I am not a lawyer" when engaging in casual conversation, writing Internet posts, etc. to avoid civil or criminal liability for one's comments? Specifically, in the absence of: claims to be a lawyer or implied claims (i.e. posing) accepting payment or other compensation for legal advice Is there any presumption under US law that casually giving advice to others on matters of law constitutes professional legal advice? If a hypothetical statement is needed, let's say you said this to your next-door neighbor, who has no particular reason to believe you are a lawyer: "Based on my own past experience, and my reading of this statute, you are free to ignore this letter you received in the mail, as not answering does not change your outlook." If your neighbor took this advice, and ended up in a bad position, and blamed you, are you in any way more liable under the law than if you had also said, "But I'm not a lawyer, so you should seek professional advice"? I'm neglecting the practical (psychological) reasons to make such disclaimers. Whether they have any real effect or not, giving them may preclude making trouble in people's minds.

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...

I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...

What you are talking about here is the tort of negligent misstatement, a subset of the tort of negligence . First, there is no presumption in any jurisdiction that I am aware of that anyone is or is not a lawyer (or doctor, or engineer etc.). If people knew that you were, however, then it is reasonable that they would give your statements more weight then if they did not know. It may also be reasonable if they suspected you were. The practical purpose of such a disclaimer is to ensure that they know you aren't. For the specific facts...

This is the Fed (FCC) saying "I'm paying for this, so I get to determine who uses it." The service costs money. It is not automagic speech to text, but rather there is often (usually?) an actual human typing it in. Carriers front the cost, and then get compensation from the Fed. The Federal govt picks up that cost. They don't want people that don't need it due to hearing loss making use of that service and its associated costs. From the FCC : Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (b) Availability of telecommunications relay services: the Commission...


Is it legal to have an abortion in another state or abroad?

Alabama passed new laws recently, making abortion a very limited option. In that context is it legal for a US national who lives in Alabama to have an abortion in another state where it is legal in the circumstances she in in? have an abortion abroad, in circumstances which are illegal in the US? Does the "US national" above matter? In other words: is the specific act of abortion illegal on itself in Alabama (or another state if it matters), just because of the geographic constraints - or is it related to the fact that someone lives in Alabama or, more broadly, is a US citizen (second bullet of my question)? Or, yet phaserly differently: can someone who lives in Alabama just travel to another state and get an abortion, then come back safely (= Alabama law enforcement does not care) or is it still a felony to have an abortion outside of Alabama? Note: Alabama is taken as an example following the recent law changes and their wide broadcasting in France. Any other state with a similar law will do.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

Does the "US national" above matter? The nationality of the person is not relevant. Like most criminal statutes, the law applies to acts within the jurisdiction of Alabama, which basically means within the state's territory. The only foreign people who would be immune from that jurisdiction would be diplomats and the like, but such people would not be licensed to practice medicine in Alabama. This brings us to the point in the next paragraph. is it still a felony to have an abortion outside of Alabama? No. It is not even a felony to have an abortion inside Alabama. The...

As stated, this is not a reasonable restriction and runs afoul of the Fair Housing Act . You cannot discriminate based on family status, with an exemption for " housing for older persons ", and the act "does not limit the applicability of reasonable local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" (let's leave aside HOA restrictions for a moment). The number of occupants can legally be restricted in terms of a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest such as parking availability, safety, noise or securing the property. A restriction based on...

Legally speaking, very many nations grant asylum, and religious persecution is one of the most basic grounds for granting asylum, following the 1951 Refugee Convention . This newspaper article compares asylum statistics in Ireland versus other parts of Europe. The Irish immigration authorities spell out the details for an asylum application. Note that you must already be in Ireland, to apply for asylum in Ireland (you should apply when you enter the country). One could also apply to Norway (almost an English-speaking country), but again you have to be in Norway to do so. There is a generic solution to...


What if a restaurant suddenly cannot accept credit cards, and the customer has no cash?

If a restaurant normally accepts credit cards, and a customer eats a meal there, then tries to pay with his valid credit card, and the cashier says the credit card system is down and they can only accept cash today, and the customer has no cash, and no easy way to get cash, can the customer legally leave without ever paying? Does the restaurant have a simple and legal way to enforce the debt? Assume the restaurant displays signs that they accept credit cards, and gives no prior notice to the contrary. Also assume the restaurant's bank has just severed its relationship with the restaurant, so credit card payments in any form are not viable.

There is no intention to commit theft, so there is no criminal act on the part of the customer. Even if there was a criminal act, the ability of the restaurant to detain the cusomer (citizen's arrest) is very limited in most jurisdictions. The restaurant can ask the customer for his name and address, but there is no legal obligation on the customer to provide this. Refusal to do so, however, might be evidence of intention to avoid paying and at that point the restaurant might call the police. The customer can leave, and the restaurant can pursue the debt...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...

The article says: Defense lawyers say the evidence does not show a celebration of violence. Which implies that the prosecution claimed exactly that, or at least that the defense anticipates the prosecution to claim something along those lines. The article also says [ bold italic emphasis mine]: Defense lawyers for Rhodes have previously addressed the dinner, saying that prosecutors’ theory of the episode is incorrect. Rhodes’ lawyers said in a court filing the dinner is evidence that the militia leader wasn’t working to foment a revolution . “ The conditions would never be better . Yet, Rhodes and the others...


During WWII, Desmond Doss joined the US Army as a combat medic. Due to his religious belief in nonviolence, he refused to carry a weapon and was eventually allowed to do so, going on to win various medals (including the Medal of Honor) for rescuing casualties in various battles of the Pacific Theatre—his story was later made into the film Hacksaw Ridge . Is it still possible today for somebody to join the armed forces, but to refuse to carry a weapon? Specifically, I am wondering about the US and the UK armed forces, but interesting answers about any other country are welcome. Initially I thought Doss would have been conscripted which may have changed things, but apparently he chose to enlist so that argument doesn't hold up. I've searched but I haven't found anything about whether this would still be possible now or if military law may have changed to disallow it.

united-states united-kingdom legal-history military

In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge. Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there are established military procedures to take care of this when it happens. Mostly the process seems to be managed informally , with the objector simply being shuffled into a non-combatant role within their regiment and just left there for the...

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...

My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...


Is the typo in the 25th amendment significant?

The fourth section of the 25th amendment to the US constitution provides for the president to be declared unfit involuntarily. The first of its two paragraphs describes the declaration itself, made by the vice president along with "a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide." The second paragraph describes a mechanism for the president to resume the "powers and duties" of the office by declaring "that no inability exists." This paragraph also establishes a mechanism for "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" to challenge the president's declaration. This question is about the difference in the designation of those whose action is required along with the vice president. The first paragraph uses the word "departments," plural, and the second uses "department," singular. I suppose that the second paragraph was added during the debates on the amendment, and that the use of the singular in the second paragraph is probably an error. Would courts be likely conclude that the difference is unintentional? If not, does the use of the singular change the meaning of the phrase significantly? I am especially interested in answers that look at the the legislative history of the amendment to support or refute the hypothesis that the second paragraph was an addition to the original form of the text. As far as I can tell, the relevant congressional documents are not available online for the 1960s.

Most leases have a provision allowing a landlord to make entry without notice in an emergency, but the better course of action, as noted in a comment by @BlueDogRanch, is to call the police and ask them to make a "welfare check." You would ordinarily be permitted to cooperate with police by unlocking doors in furtherance of their welfare check. The police are trained to do this properly in a way that properly balances the need to aid someone who is sick or ill, the need to preserve evidence if there was a death or crime that needs to be...

In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to "affirm" instead of "swear" You do not have to say "so help me God" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed "solemn affirmation" has the same legal consequences as the traditional swearing on a Bible: I.e., you would be held to the same statutes and rules that apply to sworn statements.

Prologue , a magazine published by the National Archives, had an article about the missing S back in 2012. In short, the problem was due to a scrivener's error. Congress recognized the error at roughly the same time it submitted the amendment to the states but decided it was too late to fix it: There was a brief discussion of the possibility of recalling the joint resolution for reconsideration in each chamber, but Congress was operating under severe time pressures as it worked toward adjournment for the summer, and it was decided that the record of congressional debates and actions...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....


Is it a real legal principle that any ambiguity in a contract is interpreted to the benefit of the side that did not write the contract?

I have heard that there is a legal principle where any ambiguity in the contract is interpreted to the benefit of the side that did not draw up or suggest the contract text . This was presented to me somewhat anecdotally, but sounded reasonable - so I'm not sure what to make of it. Is there any such or similar thing, formalized to any degree? I'd prefer an answer in the context of both Common and Continental law.

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

Contra proferentem However, it's a principle that is rarely applied in practice since it's at the end of a long line of judicial reasoning that gets applied first. Ambiguity in contract provisions are usually resolved by the golden rule : Determine the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used Consider the context of the contract including its purpose, any "recitals" or "background" clauses and other relevant provisions If the ordinary and natural meaning is inconsistent with the context or gives rise to absurdities, modify the meaning as appropriate. In the vast majority of case, this approach will give a...

It is legal, at least in the US, for a store (or other entity) to refuse to sell any item to any individual for any non-prohibited reason (prohibited reasons are typically things like race or religion). More over, in various US jurisdictions, it is prohibited to "furnish" alcohol to a "minor" (for example, under California's ABC law), which can be interpreted as prohibiting to an adult if they reasonably suspect that adult will pass the alcohol onto the "minor". This is to prevent "straw" sales. Additionally, larger chains generally prefer to have harmonized policies across branches, and where practical, across...

Short Answer Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and applicants with only a GED or to the national guard must have an ASVAB score in the 50th percentile which is equivalent to an IQ of 100). But, U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to allow people...


What is the legal distinction between Twitter banning Trump and Trump blocking individuals?

For reference, this recent NPR article contains all of the information that inspired this question. The lawsuits referenced in the above article center on then-President Trump blocking individual users on Twitter from interacting with or seeing his tweets. Lower courts apparently ruled that Trump's twitter feed is essentially a public forum, and therefore, blocking users was unconstitutional because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination. There haven't been (as far as I know) any lawsuits against Twitter for their banning of Trump while he was President. Clearly, any such lawsuits would likely be ruled moot now, but it stands to reason that if Trump isn't allowed to prevent people from interacting with him on social media, then Twitter shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from interacting with him either. One possible distinction here is that Twitter wasn't practicing viewpoint discrimination since they effectively blocked everyone from interacting with President Trump without regard to viewpoint. However, if the President's presence turns a social media account into a public forum, then preventing the president from having an account seems to be a form of viewpoint discrimination in itself. Really, the whole thing is very strange since it seems to suggest that Twitter (a private company) has control over whether or not certain public fora are allowed to exist. To me, that sounds like those fora were never really "public" at all (meaning Trump should be able to block people from his personal account), or if they were, then Trump's viewpoint was being discriminated against and Twitter has an obligation as the purveyor of this public forum to protect his rights. Why are Trump blocking individuals on Twitter and Twitter effectively blocking everyone for Trump by banning him treated differently under the law?

constitutional-law freedom-of-speech us-federal-government first-amendment social-media

No Parliament is sovereign : Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change . Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...


If you are a lawyer of a thief, drug dealer, or human trafficker, what would you tell your client to tell IRS?

I read this in 9gag. So what should we do if we are in this situation? If thieves and criminals can just say I have this income and don't tell the source, can legitimate businessmen do the same?

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

NAL, but I used to work for the IRS. GS-0592-08, AUSC W/I CSCI (for non-feds, that means General Sector, series 0592 grade 8, Tax Examiner, Austin Service Center, Division -> Wage & Investment, Section -> Collections Services and Compliance Operations. Yeah, no joke.) And I wanted to add some insider insight to help clarify some of the thoughts already shared here. First off, I feel like clarification is needed because lay people get especially confused about this very, very easily: the IRS is an agency exactly like the FBI, except the IRS falls under the US Dept of Treasury and...

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.


Legality of penalising Russian Oligarchs

What is the legal basis for penalising individual Russian Oligarchs? Having ill-gotten wealth and dubious friends is hardly unique to Russia, and whilst I can understand with the desire of the Western / European powers to been seen to be doing something I can't see the legal basis of confiscating their assets. If they really are just a bunch of crooks why have they been swanning around the free-world for the last 25 years? What have they done in the last nine-days which suddenly justifies personal sanctions against them? As far as I know most of them don't hold any current positions of power/authority in Russia (not officially anyhow). Whilst I broadly accept the consensus that they're Putin's cronies who owe much of their current success to their past associations with him, and whilst I'd personally be delighted to see their money go to support Ukrainian refugees I can't actually see a good legal argument for sanctions other than 'guilt by association' - which probably wouldn't stand up in court.

In the united-kingdom , the legal basis flows from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 . This allows regulations to be made for particular sanctions regimes, in this case The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and its several amendments, including three revisions this year. Under those regulations, the Secretary of State may designate individuals who are then subject to particular sanctions. A consolidated list is available for all individuals and organizations who have been named under any of the regulations, not just the Russia one. Working backwards from the list, we see such names as Vladimir Putin, who...

Technically anyone can sit on a jury. Lawyers are not automatically excluded from juries anymore, as being called for jury duty is a right and a duty that the law abhors automatically excluding people from. That is the official line on this. However, in reality, lawyers will always be stricken from serving by one of the lawyers trying the case. Each lawyer has a certain number of preemptory strikes (the ability to get rid of a juror for any reason, aside from those protected by law, such as race, religion, etc). They also have unlimited "for cause strikes," which are...

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...


Do the Ohio sheriffs suing Afroman have any legal standing in their claim of "invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses" lawsuit?

From this article “Afroman Sued by Sheriffs for Allegedly Profiting from Raid on his Home . Afroman is reportedly being sued by a number of Ohio sheriff deputies for allegedly profiting off the raid they conducted on his home last summer. The Adams County Sheriff’s Department ran up on Afroman’s home last August, where officers searched for illegal narcotics but failed to find anything. Afroman filmed the entire raid via his security cameras, and in the months since the raid has compiled the footage together to turn it into a music video called “Will You Help Me Repair My Door.” This has reportedly upset the Ohio sheriff’s deputies involved in the raid as they believe Afroman to be profiting off their hard work. In turn, the police are suing for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses, and are claiming the music video has caused them emotional distress, ridicule, humiliation, loss of reputation and embarrassment. “My house is my property, my video camera films, everything on my property as they begin, stealing my money, disconnecting plus destroying my video camera system, they became my property,” Afroman said. “Criminals caught in the act, of vandalizing and stealing money. My video footage is my property. I used it to identify the criminals who broke into my house, and stole my money. I used it to identify criminals, who broke into my house, stole my money and disconnected my home security system.” Do the Ohio sheriffs suing Afroman have any legal standing in their claim "invasion of privacy and misappropriation of their likenesses" lawsuit?

united-states privacy first-amendment ohio right-of-publicity

The deputies have standing, but they're probably going to lose. "Standing" is just a legal principle that limits the legal process to people who have suffered certain types of injuries. Jen's answer offers a good explanation of why the answer is yes, they do have standing. But I assume you're less interested in whether the officers are capable of bringing the case than in whether their case is likely to succeed. The answer to that is no. Claim 1 alleges a violation of Ohio's right-of-publicity statute. But that statute includes a carveout for any "use of the persona of an...

Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms....


Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?

For purposes of conjecture, say some nameless online troll decides that they hate you. Perhaps you said you don't worship the members of a K-Pop band they like. As a result, they do some research and find your address. They then proceed to call your local police department, reporting a (fictional) hostage situation / homicide in progress / etc. at your address. The police department's SWAT team busts down your door and trashes your house. This is a "prank" called swatting . As is the troll's intention, it causes a lot of damage to your property, damage you can't afford to get repaired. Is there any way to get the police department to pay for the damage? After all, they did just come and trash your house despite you having done nothing wrong (besides the horrendous crime of not worshiping the troll's favorite band).

There is precedent for the idea that double jeopardy need not apply when the initial trial was a sham because the judge and/or jury had been bribed. See Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) . This case was very similar to your hypothetical: Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his...

There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation. In a similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado , an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.) But, there...

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...


Is it stealing if three books are allowed to be taken for free and I take more?

There is a charity shop, which sells nothing but gives books away for free. They do accept optional donations of money, and any books donations so they have more books to give away for free. Upon entering the charity shop, there is a sign saying that only a maximum of three books may be taken per visit. Assume someone visiting the shop knowingly takes more than three books, without being caught at the time, but is discovered a short period of time later on CCTV. In England and Wales, would this be a Criminal Offence or a Civil Matter?

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...

By Army regulations, no, he's not allowed to wear that uniform. Prince Harry technically isn't a "retired officer". Rather, he resigned his commission in the Army, effective 19 June 2015. See the London Gazette for 11 August 2015, Supplement 61319, page 14838 , under "Captain H. C. A. D. WALES 564673". According to the Army Dress Regulations 02.45a (page 101 of the PDF), "It is to be noted that those who resigned their commissions are not authorised to wear uniform under any circumstances." Moreover, under the Uniforms Act 1894 : (1)It shall not be lawful for any person not serving...

This has been prosecuted criminally, in the scenario of people taking a huge pile of "free" newspapers to sell for recycling. See coverage in the Independent from 16 February 2019. Some previous prosecutions against the same or similar groups had been dropped but this one succeeded. While copies of the Evening Standard are given away for free at train stations, the big stack of them is still somebody's property, and the socially expected arrangement is that a member of the public will take just one, rather than the lot. The reason they are being offered is to achieve a wide...

Parliamentary Supremacy was established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which James II & VII was deposed by Parliament, and the line of succession was changed by Act of Parliament to favor William and Mary. Key laws passed during the aftermath of the Revolution included the Declaration of Right (which forbade keeping a standing army without Parliamentary consent, and put control of the military in Parliament), and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 which established in law obligations of the monarch. Since 1688 it has remained the governing principle of English (later British and UK) law that ultimate authority lies...


What if I say "this statement is false" while under oath?

Let's say I am in a court proceeding, and then make swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I tell the judge I would like to make an opening remark, he says yes, and I say "My opening remark is a false statement." What happens to me? If they claim that my statement is false and try to prosecute me, then it is in fact not false, and they cannot prosecute. If they claim my statement is true, then it is in fact false, and they cannot not prosecute me. What happens?

See 18 U.S.C. s. 1621 (a) . Perjury only relates to material matter . In my opinion, your little logical paradox isn't material. You might be scolded by the judge to stay on point. If you keep doing it, you'll be held in contempt of court .


I fancy myself an amateur lawyer. Can I represent someone in court, in the state of Maryland?

I live in Montgomery County Maryland. I am not a lawyer. But I have significant legal experience. I have successfully sued people, watched many trials, I have successfully won dozens of trials for my own traffic violations. And I'm a former state legislator. So I have read and argued about lots of legislation. Sometimes I feel like an amateur lawyer myself. And a pretty darn good one at that. My father recently received a ticket from an automated-traffic-enforcement system because he made a right turn without coming to a full stop. The fine is $75. But he doesn't want to pay it and I don't want him to pay it. It's more the principle of the matter than the fine amount. Because of my extensive experience litigating traffic trials, I want to represent my father in his trial. But as I mentioned above, I am not a licensed attorney. Can I represent him nonetheless? When the judge goes through the docket and calls his case, can I stand up and say, "Your Honor, I'm here representing Mr. Ali in this case?" Or will I get in trouble for doing so? This case is in the District Court of Maryland in Montgomery County.

united-states maryland unlicensed-practice legal-representation

Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of...

Yes. Let's assume this anecdote takes place while Gates was CEO. Bill Gates doesn't own all of Microsoft, and as an officer of the company, he owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Taking the company's property for personal use breaches that fiduciary duty . Now, in this particular hypothetical, Gates might have a decent argument that, as a public figure who can afford any piece of technology he desires, him being seen using a Microsoft Surface actually is acting in the company's best interests. But that wouldn't...

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...

If you are not a member of the Bar of Maryland, you may not "practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-601 . "Practicing law" includes "representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political subdivision." Maryland Business Occupations and Professions § 10-101 . "[A] person who violates § 10-601 of this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both." Maryland Business...


What is the legality of "Ban Evasions"? This sounds like a dumb question but perhaps enlighten the ignorant. Ban Evasion, "The creation of a new account on a platform or website after being previously banned for ToS violations". In 2018, the 9th Circuit court of appeals ruled that violating the ToS isn't a crime, but does that still cover Ban Evasion? An example would be, say, Jody had an account with a very popular video sharing platform, he broke the rules and had his account suspended permanently. He learns from those mistakes (because we all make mistakes in our lives), and recreate a brand new account, despite it being written in the ToS that you cannot make a brand new account. He does so regardless, makes a new account, but then gets banned again for Ban Evasion, despite not violating any other rules, Would this be considered a criminal offense? Big companies (or companies in general) will most likely not care, because it's not worth the legal fees to pursue such a case, and it's better off making it harder to ban evade, or write better rules, but regardless, Did Jody commit a crime, whether on state level, or federal level? (In the United States at least).

united-states criminal-law terms-of-service cfaa

In theory, such an action could be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , specifically 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(C): Whoever...intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any protected computer; Where the relevant "protected computer" definition is in the same section under (e)(2)(B): As used in this section...the term “protected computer” means a computer...which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the...

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...


Was it illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of the State of the Union address?

President Trump has claimed it was illegal for Nancy Pelosi to tear up her copy of his State of the Union address, as it was an official document. Is there any law stating that it is illegal to tear up official documents, and does this qualify under that law as an official document?

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...


Could a British monarch "go full dictator" if they wish to do so?

Queen Elizabeth II was generally nice and didn't abuse her power. But could her successor do otherwise and "go full dictator", in theory? Would he have enough legal powers to do so? Admittedly, dictators are not known for playing by the book, but they often start out in a lawful or a "semi-lawful" fashion. To what extent, if I put it another way, does the British democracy rely on solid legal checks and balances, not on the monarch's goodwill? Considering the UK's uncodified constitution, which is not really there, one may start to have some doubts about it.

The third Geneva convention says in its second article (emphasis added): the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The violence in Ukraine qualifies for at least two reasons: it is an armed conflict between...


Does being engaged (to be married) carry any legal significance?

Being married carries specific legal consequences, e.g. spouses typically are treated differently under tax law, divorce property law, inheritance law, have rights regarding medical visitation and medical decisions. Sometimes insurance carriers treat them differently, though i'm unsure if that's legally mandated or just standard practice. Absent a specific signed engagement contract which stipulates specific legal ramifications, does being engaged (to be married) carry any legal significance ? Jurisdiction is either USA, or France (I'm interested in both). Significance may be to either party of the engagement, or to third parties (e.g. in how they have to treat engaged partner, or the couple, differently). Just to be clear, consequences must stem from the fact of engagement, NOT from things like co-habitation, being declared "domestic partners" etc...

You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions like "am I free to go" when you want to leave and are testing whether you are under arrest. Even then they don't have to answer your questions right away. The...

There are only a few areas of law of which I am aware that U.S. law treats people who are engaged to be married differently (although perhaps with more thought I could expand the list). Fiance(e)s come under a special immigration status when applying for a visa. There is a body of law related to whether an engagement ring is an absolute gift or is conditional upon being married (this is not uniform from state to state and I don't recall what the majority rule in those cases is under the common law). In South Carolina , ownership disputes over...

A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...


What crime is hiring someone to kill you and then killing the hitman?

Suppose that yesterday I was suicidal and decided to hire a hitman on the internet to kill me. Today, when they turn up, I have changed my mind and defend myself by killing the hitman. What crime(s) have I committed? This is completely hypothetical, so any jurisdiction would be interesting.

This aspect (and many others) of contract law is applicable in the US and various countries of the EU. can they renege after the candidate has begun their journey, thus saddling the candidate with the travel cost? No. The company would incur breach of contract. There is no need for a formal contract. The candidate only needs to prove that the company agreed (in writing, orally or clearly through its conduct) to cover or reimburse those expenses and that this elicited a meeting of the minds . The agreement would be void if the candidate incurred the expenses despite knowing...

It appears you want to go for a defense strategy based on a self-defense argument. This won't work in many jurisdictions, because self-defense usually doesn't apply when you intentionally caused a situation where you knew you would have to harm someone in self-defense. Similar case: Bob regularly mugs old women in the park by threatening them with a gun. Charlie finds out and wants to stop him. But instead of reporting it to the police, he wants to take care of this himself. Charlie get a gun, dresses up as an old woman and waits in the park. When Bob...

Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...


Does the popular media cliche Stop, in the name of the law have any founding in actual law or policing practice, either current or historical? Did police ever say this as a matter of course? If so why? If not where did this expression enter the popular consciousness?

A few possible reasons it could be illegal (on an issue spotting basis, not a careful analysis of each possible reason): The EO is intended to discriminate on the basis of religion and in fact does so in violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. The EO is intended to unlawfully discriminate based upon race or ethnicity in violation of U.S. statutes or the 14th Amendment. The EO was adopted without observing the notice and hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The EO took effect prematurely because it was not duly published in the Federal Register...

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

In long ago English practice, the phrase used was " Stop in the name of the King ". At one time this was, if I am not mistaken, required for a valid arrest. I am talking about a time hundreds of years ago, by the way. That phrase, in turn, goes back to a still older concept. At one time, in Germanic customary law, each important leader had a "peace" -- an area in and around his dwelling, domain, and presence -- in which any violation of law and custom was an offense against the leader, not just against a...


Can I use my own Stack Exchange answer in a book?

I’ve seen some similar questions, but was wondering about a more specific case. I wrote a Stack Exchange answer, and would like to use it in one section of a book I’m writing (which will be commercially sold). I also modified the answer, and added to it, but some original passages remain. I’m wondering if, as the author, and with proper attribution that the section is based on my Stack Exchange answer, with a link, this is legally acceptable?

Through the legal doctrine of "transferred intent", wherein if one intends to murder A, and undertake actions to kill A, but one's actions kill B, one has murdered B. Whatever crimes one would have committed, had one performed them on one's intended target, are considered committed against the individual one actually performed them on. Many crimes require one to have mens rea to be guilty; they do not require one to have mens rea towards a given individual. So, so long as one had the proper intent to murder someone, the actual victim of their actions is irrelevant.

Yes, that’s allowed. Under the Stack Exchange terms of service , content you upload is licensed to Stack Exchange Inc. on a non-exclusive basis under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The terms of service do not give Stack Exchange the copyright to your contributions, and a non-exclusive license means you are not promising Stack Exchange that “only Stack Exchange will be allowed to use this content.” That means you can continue to do whatever you want with your own content and do not need to mention Stack Exchange at all. The only restriction is that you can’t stop Stack Exchange from continuing to...

Powers What power do I have as a driver if my interstate route is blocked by a protest? As an ordinary citizen, no powers in most jurisdictions. You have the right to report obstruction of the highway to the local police. You likely have the right to sue those people if you have evidence of significant harm they have caused you. Right to Obstruct I feel like ethically no one has the right to obstruct my travel You are wrong to put this in absolute terms. For example, a roadworker holding a "stop" sign has the right to temporarily obstruct...

My impression, and the plausible explanation in the absence of the actual facts, is that this was something that the attorney agreed to, in order to allow a skittish client to reveal information pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The police probably insisted that the client be handcuffed to someone while doing this to prevent the client from fleeing. The attorney probably offered to do the job instead of a police officer, to be able to provide advice to his client and keep his client calm enough to do it, which might not have happened (sacrificing the favorable plea deal...


I have been wondering that since a train company owns its locomotives and train cars, then I am assuming that this means that they own any graffiti that has been painted on their locomotives and train cars. I have recently read that it is illegal for someone to put graffiti on any train company equipment, since it is an act of vandalism, so this makes me think that that any graffiti artist(s) who created graffiti on train equipment cannot get a copyright(s) on the graffiti that they put on train equipment. If the graffiti thus belongs to the train company, then I am assuming that this means that the train company automatically owns the copyright(s) to this graffiti, and they would thus be free to take photographs of this graffiti and could display and/or sell these photographs to the general public, if they wanted to do so. Is it legal for a train company to create an art gallery using photographs of the graffiti on their locomotives and train cars?

united-states copyright intellectual-property business property

Yes, their waiver has no legal basis and is invalid under the GDPR. They should have hired a better lawyer. GDPR rights cannot be waived ( mrllp.com ). The last bit should have been: Therefore, in consideration of my participation in any project, I understand that retaining my name and email address, as described above, does not require my consent and that the right of erasure, as spelled out in the GDRP Article 17 (1) b does not apply. The legal basis for our lawful processing of this personal data is Article 6 (1) f ("processing is necessary for the...

I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

Copyright law doesn't say the art isn't copyrighted if it was made unlawfully. It seems the art can be copyrighted and the act of making it can be a criminal offence. I'm not aware of any such copyright cases that have gone to trial. A fairly well known case that settled out of court is that of Jason “Revok” Williams and H&M. Williams noticed his art in a photograph used in an H&M marketing campaign. His lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to H&M. In response, H&M applied for a court order stating that the product of an unlawful act could...


Can "Dumb Starbucks" be legally considered Fair Use as satire or parody?

About a year ago, a new, familiar-looking coffee shop opened in LA. Their reasoning for this was, basically, that it's making fun of the popular coffeehouse chain and is thus fair use: Naturally, it attracted a lot of attention and was later revealed that it was really a publicity stunt created by a comedian, but he still made a statement that "as long as we're making fun of Starbucks, we're allowed to use their corporate identity" (as seen here ). Had Starbucks sued for trademark infringement (which they probably planned to do , but the thing was actually closed for operating without a valid public health permit ), would the whole parody as fair use thing hold in court (or at least have some relevance in the case)?

The Plan For A Clearly Guilty Client Without Bargaining Power This question underestimates how much of a criminal defense lawyer's work involves sentencing rather than a determination of guilt or innocence. Suppose as the OP does that the prosecution can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your client is guilty, you client has no plausible defenses, and the prosecutor won't budge on a plea. As a criminal defense lawyer, you may well advise your client that there is no percentage in fighting guilt on the charges, and have your client plea guilty. This prevents the prosecutor from spelling out...

In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote: [T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation...

This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called "Dumb Starbucks" while using their trademark, they would be be found liable if sued. You can parody a trademark brand, so long as the work is transformative such that the use of the brand goes from selling coffee to making a commentary in which the brand...


Why would someone get a fine when using a disabled parking space when the disabled person is not in the car?

An article in LA Times about someone parking on a disabled parking space without the disabled person being in the car: (...) I saw a woman pull into a disabled parking space and begin to exit her car. Two men in plain clothes flashed badges as they approached the car. One of them asked to see the registration slip that went with the disabled placard that hung from the driver’s rearview mirror. It turned out that the placard was in the name of her son, but he wasn’t in the car. So the officers confiscated the placard, which her son will have to reapply for, and wrote her a citation. I have a hard time understanding how one can get a citation for this? My wife is disabled (in France, so the laws may vary) and I sometimes park, alone, in the disabled spot in order to bring her to the car (or wait for her to come) . The disabled parking space is there to help disabled people, when they arrive to the place, but also when they leave from it. Both do not always happen in sequence (I can drop someone off, or wait for someone to get to the car). I would be ideally interested in a French (or EU) perspective (but still keeping it open as the article is from the US)

united-states driving france disabilities

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...

There is a history of "giving away patents", which allows the original grantor to foster innovation instead of stifle it. Here are some examples: Sealand Industries - ISO Shipping Container Patented the standard shipping container, then gave away the patent royalty free, allowing a revolution in ocean going shipping. Annually it is estimated that $440 billion are shipped through these containers. Tesla - 200+ patents Elon Musk announced that the company "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." . Toyota - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Patents Released 5,680 patents related to hydrogen...


What is the purpose of a disclaimer like "this is not legal advice"?

If someone who is not a lawyer is giving out legal advice, does it make any difference if they include a disclaimer along the lines of "this is not legal advice"? For the purposes of this question, I assume legal advice means one party instructing another party on how to comply with laws (like a consultant might do). Do they disclaim some kind of liability? Do they merely avoid suggesting they are lawyers when they're not?

european-union germany lawyer disclaimers unlicensed-practice

Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the the right to an independent judge, as established in Golder v UK , ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves. (The Dutch case confirms that sector-wide arbitration is in fact legal, with regard to a standard arbitration clause commonly used in the Dutch building sector. The arbiter was found to be independent in that case precisely because they weren't picked by the builder involved.) The GDPR is only indirectly relevant, but the fact that it's mentioned...

In most jurisdictions, practicing law without a bar license is a serious offence, which, inter alia, is the primary reason why a non-lawyer would use this disclaimer. Lawyers also use this disclaimer to avoid any 'constructive implication' of attorney-client relationship.


I saw a website that involves programming problems. One problem asks to write a program that finds a string whose MD5 hash is given. Is it criminal to crack the MD5 hash by finding those strings?

Yes you can, and you can even include "editorials or subjective content". However, if you include factual statements, or words that imply factual statements, the company could claim that they are false, and therefore defamatory. Indeed they might claim that in any case. If you make no false statements of fact, they should not be able to win a defamation suit, but you might need to spend time and money defending yourself if they choose to sue. The detailed rules on defamation vary by jurisdiction, in the US by state. But in no US state can defamation be found against...

Is it criminal to find strings whose MD5 hash is known? No, unless the method or purpose involves gaining (or attempting to obtain) unauthorized access to others' computer systems or networks, or causing damage to them. This applies regardless of whether you program some brute-force algorithm rather or query a public [online] database that stores reverse hashes.


Is it legal for Blizzard to completely shut down Overwatch 1 in order to replace it with Overwatch 2?

Overwatch (1) was a multiplayer first-person shooter video game created by Blizzard. It was released in 2016 and cost around 40€ . Earlier this year, Overwatch 1 was shut down : The servers are down. The game is not playable from the official Blizzard game launcher. It has been replaced by Overwatch 2 , which is considered its "sequel" by Blizzard and is free to play, but with very high-priced in-game cosmetics. I do not understand how this is considered a legal action for the following reasons: I paid 30/40 bucks for the right to own Overwatch 1 (did I?) and to play it. Overwatch 1, for which I paid, is now completely unusable for me, so the service (if not the product) I have paid for is now not available It is replaced by a free to play game (what happened to my 40 bucks) While playing OW1, I earned ingame credits which allowed me to purchase cosmetics (so, basically, I got those cosmetics in exchange for my time, not for my money). Those cosmetics have been "transferred" to OW2 and they now cost an insane amount of money (something like at least 10 dollars each, and there are a lot of them (purchasable and than I unlocked in OW1)). However, as I just said, I did not purchase the cosmetics, I (think I) purchased the product and the service provided to use it. Questions Did I pay for the right to own and play Overwatch 1, or just for the right to play it? Why is it legal (I assume, as they did it and I did not hear about some legal action taken to them for that) for Blizzard to shutdown completely (more like "take away from customers"?) a product and a service for which customers have paid? PS: I used the france and united-states tags as I am French and live in France and Blizzard Entertainment is a USA company.

united-states france service video-games

Your question is the subject of longstanding and ongoing debate that has generated countless articles and books and dissertations, so you're probably not going to get a fully satisfactory answer here. But here's the short version: Different systems operate on different assumptions. Your question suggests you are not a retributivist, i.e., someone who views sentencing as a means for taking retribution for the criminal's offenses. Some systems (most, I imagine) are built around that idea, but some view criminal sentencing primarily as a means of preventing recidivism, or as a means for achieving rehabilitation, the interests you indicated you see...

The answer from @user6726 is a good one. But, I'd like to add to it by pointing out that the body of law applicable to an individual is usually much, much smaller than the entire body of law. I'm a lawyer who has been in private practice for almost 25 years with an extremely diverse practice compared to the average lawyer, and I've never even looked at perhaps 80% of the laws on the books in the states where I practice, and even less elsewhere. By statutory and regulatory volume, the vast majority of statutory and regulatory law is applicable...

I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...


Why is it considered terrorism to murder a CEO?

According to this article , Luigi Mangione got charged with terrorism for murdering the CEO. I am not sure why this murder can - under US law - be considered an act of terrorism. Here is a relevant page from NY penal law that defines terrorism: A person is guilty of a crime of terrorism when, with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she commits a specified offense. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. Did I overlook anything?

Why it is considered as terrorism to murder a CEO? It's not, as such. That is, CEOs do not have special status under New York or Federal law that would inherently make murdering them terroristic. Brian Thompson having been a CEO is not directly relevant to Mangione being charged with terrorism. I doubt that many people are intimidated or frightened by the murderer of the CEO, let alone an intention to influence policy or conduct of the government. I think your doubt is misplaced, but it is in any case irrelevant whether Mangione's alleged actions were effective in intimidating or...

An essential component of your contract with them is that they will provide you with food free of animal stuff (the exact nature of "vegan approved" may be up for debate, but actual meat should not be included). So they breached their contract with you, and you might sue them for breach of contract. The case of Gupta v. Asha (orders were mixed up) could be useful in this matter. In this case, Hindus were served samosas containing beef, despite repeated assertions that they were vegetarian. Plaintiffs sued, the case was dismissed, and the appeals court deemed that the lower...

Public nudity is illegal in New York as it is in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. And, if the police had arrested the nude protesters, the arrests probably would have been upheld in court, because a ban on nudity in public would probably be viewed as a time, place and manner restriction on the freedom of speech which is constitutionally valid. For example, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld San Francisco’s public nudity ordinance in Taub v. City and County of San Francisco (2017). As the court in that case explains in a factually very similar case: Public...


Are disclaimers of warranty, liability, and the like legally required to be in all-caps? For example, the "disclaimer of warranty" section from the GNU GPL : THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. On the other hand, Stack Exchange's disclaimer of warranty uses normal casing (well, normal for legal documents): Stack Exchange has no special relationship with or fiduciary duty to Subscriber. Subscriber acknowledges that Stack Exchange has no control over, and no duty to take any action regarding: which users gains access to the Network; which Content Subscriber accesses via the Network; what effects the Content may have on Subscriber; how...

Do they have to use all caps? Well, no. It's just that companies feel that's the easiest way to make the text "conspicuous" which is required by the Uniform Commercial Code explicitly in § 2-316. Exclusion or Modification of Warranties. (2)Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is...

Think through the logical combinations of two questions: The government is tyrannical or just, the revolution is successful or not. Tyrannical government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Just government, revolution successful: The revolutionaries will congratulate each other, and of course they are not persecuted by the new government they install . Tyrannical government, revolution not successful: The legal system will find the justified attempt illegal (because they are the legal system defending a tyrannical government), the would-be revolutionaries are persecuted. Just government, revolution...

I believe you have just misunderstood what you paid for. Blizzard's End User License Agreement says: Your use of the Platform is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership with respect to the Platform or the Games is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights. It also says: Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Platform or Accounts at any time, including removing items, or revising the effectiveness of items in an effort to balance a Game. Blizzard may...

There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use...


Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?

I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid. I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents. If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?

united-states contract-law new-york-state signature

at what point can you just leave? Is it always technically illegal in the UK to leave without paying the bill? Probably depends on what you mean with just leaving. If just leaving translates I haven't paid and I won't pay (because of the hassle with the card) then that's probably Making Off Without Payment, section 3 Theft Act 1978 (Thanks @bdsl). Could the restaurant just force you to wait until close of business if necessary? What if they still hadn't fixed the payment system by then? I don't think a restaurant can physically detain you. Not even the 45...

No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement. It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to...

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230 , but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)


How to protect assets from being passed to a beneficiary in a will when they are likely to die soon also

I'm going through the process of creating a simple (my first) last will and testament. I'm young with modest assets. I'm married with no children and live in the United States. I'd like to have something in place to make things as seamless as possible in the case of my death. My spouse will be my first beneficiary, but I will also have other family as secondary beneficiaries in the case my spouse and I die at the same time. While creating the will, I was considering the following scenario: my spouse and I are in an accident together. I die immediately, yet they live for some longer period of time (days/months). They eventually die as well. I think the question boils down to: at what point does my will go into effect and pass my assets to them? Does it have to do with their condition (conscious/unconscious, mentally competent/incompetent)? Does this change based on who is the executor of the will? It would seem a bit contrary to my wishes if I were to pass, my assets pass to my spouse, and then shortly to their second beneficiaries instead of mine, especially if it was always unlikely they'd recover. How do wills typically handle this edge case?

While there is an act that President Trump and his supporters are citing, titled the Presidential Records Act (PRA) , to accuse House Speaker Pelosi of breaking federal law, it is important to understand what actions the law accounts for. The act mandates that the President of the United States preserve records and other laws governing the federal government. This serves as a form of checks and balances to prevent the president and his advisers from shielding documentary information from public view. The act is fairly new, as it was passed in 1981. It is important to realize that this...

Wills typically handle this by specifying a survivorship period . Such a clause may say, in effect, "I leave all my assets to my spouse, provided they survive me by at least 30 days, and otherwise to beneficiaries X,Y,Z." That way, if your spouse dies shortly after you, your assets go to X,Y,Z, rather than going to your spouse and then to their beneficiaries. Another issue this avoids: suppose you are in an accident together, and by the time rescuers arrive, you are both dead. Without a survivorship period requirement, courts might have to try to determine whether one of...

Maybe, Hence the Lawsuits In the absence of clear statute law these all circle around tort law. For the scooter companies, trespass to chattels , and for the affected landowners (who hire the removalists) trespass to land and nuisance seem applicable. In essence, I can’t take your stuff (trespass to chattels) but you can’t leave your stuff on my property (trespass to land) or impeding access to it (nuisance). If you do, I am entitled to the reasonable costs of dealing with it. Note that, as owner, you remain responsible for you stuff even if you rented it to someone...