|
It means NO GUNS AT ALL EVER DURING THE DEFERRED SENTENCE. If you're not sure, err towards caution, loving this up could (will) make things much, much worse for you.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Anjow posted:In the UK, can people be sued for money they don't have? Say I don't have a job and my parents pay for my upkeep and I have no assets. I drive my car into someone and they sue me for negligence or whatever - can they be awarded £100,000 despite the fact I don't have it and won't be getting it any time soon? If so, how would I be expected to pay it? They won't be awarded £100,000 unless you hit someone incredibly rich. There are very few occasions where punitive damages are awarded in UK law and we don't have jury trial for civil matters. Damages for personal injury are worked out via a complex series of actuarial tables and precedent to come to a 'scientific' result rather than an award of what the judge happens to feel like. You wouldn't be sued anyway, your insurance company would. You are driving with insurance, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
Javid posted:It means NO GUNS AT ALL EVER DURING THE DEFERRED SENTENCE. This is how I read it as well, basically it seemed to say "If you are on a deferred sentence as a result of one of these charges X than possession of a firearm during the sentence will result in possession charge Y."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
This is for New York City. The topic is immigration law. I have a friend who (really a friend, not the old "I have a friend who..." sort of thing) has a good friend who is an illegal immigrant. He was brought to the US with his parents when he was a little boy, I think perhaps on a work visa or something to do with political asylum. He's in his early 20s now, and he is an undocumented resident. He doesn't have any family in his country of origin, and he grew up here. His family here - I don't know their status. I know he was homeless for some time when he was younger. Well, he's a great guy, and he doesn't deserve to live in fear of deportation. So my friend ( a female) wants to marry him so he can become a citizen - this is purely a citizenship marriage, not a love marriage. She would divorce him once it was allowed. I would appreciate any and all information you can provide on this subject. Thank you very much...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
Clobbermeister posted:This is for New York City. The topic is immigration law. Your friend would be subject to a felony prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Prosecutions are rare, but if your friend gets targeted, she can certainly expect her life to become a living hell - if she's lucky, only for a few months/years, but if she's unlucky, for many, many years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Check this out. Certainly a much more malicious scheme than what your friend is contemplating, but you can see what the repercussions might be if some assistant US attorney decided to come after her. http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0911/091123chicago.htm quote:Conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and marriage fraud carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Other immigration fraud counts in the indictment carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Clobbermeister posted:This is for New York City. The topic is immigration law. Here is a fun example of what can happen if you pull these shenanigans....these attorneys (ALL are attorneys except for the visa-holding individual) all lost their licenses, as they well should have. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4185/is_20070731/ai_n19440194/
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I appreciate your help and I'm sorry but I'm still having a hard time understanding even what your read on it is. Since it's a deferred sentence, there is no conviction. So what do you mean when you say anyone convicted under this statute? I'm assuming you're just saying that while this defendant is on his deferred sentence and he becomes convicted of another crime, he or she cannot posses a weapon, correct? Incorrect. The readings by Javis, ArcaneMan and Alaemon are correct: No guns/weapons for 'this defendant.' Two problems: First, you don't want that to be the answer, which makes it hard for you to see it. The statue that you're looking at specifically says that people on deferred sentences need to be informed that they will be a felon in possession if they have a prohibited weapon. That's a pretty clear indication that that people on deferred sentences will be a felon in possession if they have a prohibited weapon. Second, although your state's interpretation of "conviction" and "previous offender" are conflated, the definitions themselves are clear. Currently "conviction" can mean either a conviction, as in a "judgmentof conviction," or it can mean "a plea of guilty followed by a deferred judgment." People v. Allaire, 843 P.2d 38, 41 (Colo.Ct.App. 1992) The Colorado Supreme Court hasn't ruled directly on point on this issue, but since the legislature changed the statute to align with the Allaire decision, their conclusion would be a foregone one. Not a Colorado lawyer, not giving legal advice. Consult a Colorado attorney and ask his/her advice for your specific situation, which you will explain much more clearly, in greater detail and with the benefit and protection of an attorney-client relationship. e:links joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I appreciate your help and I'm sorry but I'm still having a hard time understanding even what your read on it is. Since it's a deferred sentence, there is no conviction. So what do you mean when you say anyone convicted under this statute? I think I got a little sloppy with my language. "Anyone serving a deferred sentence." quote:I'm assuming you're just saying that while this defendant is on his deferred sentence and he becomes convicted of another crime, he or she cannot posses a weapon, correct? Read: "if you a serving a deferred sentence, you may not own/possess/use a firearm. If you do any of those things during your deferred sentence, you will be committing the crime of Possession of a Weapon by a Previous Offender. If you commit a felony or a DV misdemeanor while on your deferred sentence, you may be charged with that crime AND Possession of a Weapon by a Previous Offender."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Or I never applied for an ABA accredited school because none of them accept people who do not have Bachelor's degrees, and I didn't feel the need to spend a couple extra years studying something with minimal relevance to law to get a Bachelor's, just so I could go to law school? Hurf durf. How dare we expect our advocates and counselors to be at a minimum college educated, let alone to hold an accredited graduate degree in good standing with their own self-regulatory association? Nah gently caress all that, I don't want to do the extra work. GJ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:I think I got a little sloppy with my language. "Anyone serving a deferred sentence." Also, "DV misdemeanor" for the purposes of this statute includes garden-variety assault and/or battery if the victim was in a domestic relationship with you - it doesn't have to be a conviction for domestic assault or domestic battery. See U.S. v. Hayes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Hurf durf. entris posted:This is more a Lawgoons Thread response, but seriously: how did you get your current "nice job"? Are you a practicing attorney, or do you have a nice non-attorney job? I am a practicing attorney. I worked as a paralegal in this field for years before I became an attorney, so I had some idea as to the field, and people in my field already knew me and what I was capable of. I suggest that to everybody just so they know what they are getting into, although internships are pretty good too. Basically, be resourceful, and get involved in your legal field. Too many people think that they can just work hard and be the monkey following someone else's directions, go through law school, and all of a sudden they're rich. It ain't loving true. They scoff and become appalled that they have to do grunt work for awhile. If being an attorney is your first long pants job then I worry for you. I'm not saying that a prestigious law school is not a good way to go, its just not the only way, and certainly not my way. I don't want to enter my profession with no hands-on training and massive debt. Also, yea this should be in the other thread, but this kind of started here with some other person's characterization of folks in the other thread and snowballed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They won't be awarded £100,000 unless you hit someone incredibly rich. There are very few occasions where punitive damages are awarded in UK law and we don't have jury trial for civil matters. Damages for personal injury are worked out via a complex series of actuarial tables and precedent to come to a 'scientific' result rather than an award of what the judge happens to feel like. My insurance costs over a grand and I'm a pedant when it comes to being on the right side of the law. I've not hit anyone, I'm not fearing any of this, it was purely hypothetical, just something I've always wondered. I used myself as an example not because I'm worried about being sued, but just because I fit the criteria for what I want to know (as a person on state benefits might too).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 09:50
|
|
|
Anjow posted:My insurance costs over a grand and I'm a pedant when it comes to being on the right side of the law. I've not hit anyone, I'm not fearing any of this, it was purely hypothetical, just something I've always wondered. I used myself as an example not because I'm worried about being sued, but just because I fit the criteria for what I want to know (as a person on state benefits might too). Well they can sue you or the insurance company and yes, the judgement would hang over you until you've finally paid it, but no sane person would sue an individual when they can just go for the insurance company.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 09:56
|
|
|
The driving was a bad example, I overlooked the fact that the insurance company would be involved. I just meant an example where someone gets sued for negligence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
Anjow posted:The driving was a bad example, I overlooked the fact that the insurance company would be involved. I just meant an example where someone gets sued for negligence. Oh well in that case you'd be utterly hosed. It would really depend on whether the other side thought you'd ever amount to anything and be worth suing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 10:14
|
|
|
This is criminal law; jurisdiction is Virginia Tooled around on Google first, didn't really see anything that helped me form a solid opinion despite 15+ years studying Matlock and Law & Order, so here I am: Last night I was out walking in when I came upon a group of 8-10 teenagers watching two of themselves fighting. They've been doing this around the small town/Richmond suburb I live in for several years, and while I've seen the videos on YouTube, and I've seen the cops breaking them up near the library etc before, I've never seen one live. They were on a soccer field, so I sat down on the bleachers and started watching. They got freaked I was going to call the cops, but even though I assured them I love watching kids beat the snot out of each other, they didn't buy it and left to fight somewhere else. But, when the kids brought up the cops I started wondering whether or not (1) it was illegal for two people (minors) to fight each other for fun (all other things being legal; I know it's trespassing for them to do it where they were) and (2) whether it's illegal for me to watch such a fight? In this instance, I was about 50 yards away from the group and the fighters and I wasn't whooping and getting into it. While they were trespassing, I have rights on the property, so I'm not worried about anything extraneous, just the fighting itself. First question is just curiosity, when I've seen the cops breaking them up I've never seen them arrest any of the kids. Second question is self-preservation. The Virginia Code: http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm I didn't have much success trying to use it but that's why you guys are the lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Schattenmann posted:This is criminal law; jurisdiction is Virginia I don't know anything about Virginia, but if the kids were charged with assault/battery and I was their defense attorney, I would argue consent. By consent I mean the "victim" agreed to engage in conduct with the "perpetrator" which he knew or should have known would result in bodily harm to himself - consent is why UFC, professional boxers, or NHL players can't (typically, there are exceptions) sue each other after every match. A consent defense wouldn't work if the kids were charged with disturbing the peace or mayhem, but for bodily harm charges the consent defense may work. As for your watching - for the most part, United States jurisprudence protects bystanders. Meaning, just observing a crime or a person in need (drowning person is the classic example) does not automatically implicate the bystander in the activity or create a duty on your part to do something. (It is my understanding that other countries, such as France, handle this very differently.) So unless Virginia has a law that requires bystanders to report every [potential] crime, which they might, you are in the clear. I'm not in VA so I'm speaking about legal principles in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
Schattenmann posted:This is criminal law; jurisdiction is Virginia This isn't legal advice, but it appears that there are some possible candidates for criminal charges: Disorderly conduct in public places, Va. Code 18.2-415, which makes it illegal to intentionally or recklessly create a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance , or alarm by engaging in various prohibited actions. There are three major categories, and I think only one of them has a real shot at active prosecution: if someone willfully disrupts the operation of any school or school activity, then they can get slapped with disorderly conduct. For this to apply to these kids, they'd have to be on school grounds or at some school activity. Whether you could use this to prosecute kids on school grounds at night is an open question, and I doubt that most prosecutors would bother. Hazing gang members, Va. Code 18.2-55.1, could arguably apply if the cops/prosecutors could make a convincing argument that this "fight club" behavior constitutes a criminal gang. I think it's a stretch, personally, but maybe if the group consists of a bunch of rowdy teenagers who also smoke dope and maybe shoplift, then you might have a case. There's also the criminal statute against hazing students for entry into clubs, Va. Code 18.2-56. Arguably these kids are students and their activity constitutes a "club." If they are on private property and there are posted "No Trespassing" signs, then there is always criminal trespass charges under Va. Code 18.2-119. If a bunch of kids get together on private property to fight, then their trespassing might qualify them for the additional charge of unlawful assembly under Va. Code 18.2-406. The thing is, the cops can charge them with any of these things, including assault (notwithstanding the consent defense), and the kids would have to contest the charges, which can be pretty annoying for the parents. I can't imagine that simply viewing a group of fighting teenagers from afar will subject you to any criminal penalty, but again that's not legal advice. /Not your lawyer, we don't have an attorney-client relationship, and I'm not providing legal advice or opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:As for your watching - for the most part, United States jurisprudence protects bystanders. Meaning, just observing a crime or a person in need (drowning person is the classic example) does not automatically implicate the bystander in the activity or create a duty on your part to do something. (It is my understanding that other countries, such as France, handle this very differently.) So unless Virginia has a law that requires bystanders to report every [potential] crime, which they might, you are in the clear. entris posted:I can't imagine that simply viewing a group of fighting teenagers from afar will subject you to any criminal penalty, but again that's not legal advice. Thanks, both of you. I guess my fear is that Officer Badass shows up and charges me as part of a mob or, since I'm an adult, endangerment or some dumb poo poo for the sake of charging me. A few years ago I had a similar situation where a cop bitched me out for photographing skateboarders even though I had every right to be on the property (my church) and was wearing state social services ID on my neck--it's my experience that they just roll up and start pissing on everyone in sight, but I'm not sure if they could actually do anything about me watching a fight between people I clearly have no real relationship with. Noodlebaby it doesn't go to my main concerns of myself getting in trouble, but while Googling I did see someone else address your point on consent, saying that since the people are minors they can't actually give consent http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090319102435AAl1h9s. Not arguing with you, but it's an interesting difference of opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
Schattenmann posted:While they were trespassing, I have rights on the property A cop might think you've allowed the kids onto the property, so you might be a ringleader or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Schattenmann posted:
I've been fascinated by the "consent" defense since law school but have never gotten a real-life chance to use it. Your situation is the closest I've come. :-) If there are any lawyers on here who have used it, either successfully or unsuccessfully, I'd love to hear the story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:I've been fascinated by the "consent" defense since law school but have never gotten a real-life chance to use it. Your situation is the closest I've come. :-) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/R_v._Brown Not me but it's the stand up best story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
"Consent" or "it wasn't actually a fight" or something similar gets argued all the time and is not really a successful defense. Two guys will get drunk and fight over a girl or something and smash up a bar, and then subsequently make up and act like it wasn't a problem. In my jurisdiction they'll just get charged with something else
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
Schattenmann posted:This is criminal law; jurisdiction is Virginia Rights on or to the property? I'd be more concerned about getting civilly sued if someone gets hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Rights on or to the property? I'd be more concerned about getting civilly sued if someone gets hurt. Yeah, I worded that awkwardly. The property belongs to a church/private school, I'm on the committee of a youth organization that is chartered to the church, so I'm allowed to be there; I walk there several times a week and have keys to the building. In other words, as far as a cop showing up and deciding to arrest people, I wouldn't have a problem in terms of trespassing like the kids would. Thus my only concern being in regards to the fight aspect of the scenario. Schattenmann fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? As my favorite law professor said (who is an uber-Republican and is now Dean of the University of Wyoming law school): no matter what your stance is on the death penalty, for or against, it should always bother you that the government is killing someone. Your question eloquently demonstrates his point: the government is engaging in exactly the behavior for which it is punishing. Doublespeak, no matter what your political beliefs are. That said, I don't know the answer to your question but am going to research it now for the state of Missouri, aka second only to Texas in death penalty enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:Your question eloquently demonstrates his point: the government is engaging in exactly the behavior for which it is punishing. Doublespeak, no matter what your political beliefs are. Lol what? So do you also think it's doublespeak for THE GOVERNMENT to jail criminals against their will?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
The poster asked about the death penalty, not imprisonment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:The poster asked about the death penalty, not imprisonment. You don't see how the same principle applies? "The government says X is bad, but the government itself does X" EDIT: Actually, I don't even need that made-up quote. The part I quoted from your post applies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
eviljelly you're detracting from my very good question with your very lame THE GOVERNMENT can do anything because it's THE GOVERNMENT crap. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? In Virginia, the Director of the Board of Corrections is authorized by statute to carry out execution sentences, which means the state government has given the Director (and his/her designated agents) the authority to execute someone - this removes their action from the reach of the criminal laws. The state government controls the criminalization of conduct, so it is within its power to exempt individuals from those laws. The criminal laws pertaining to homicide are not, themselves, written in a way that exempts the executioner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? Usually all crimes happen 'in breach of the queen's peace' (I guess in the US you have a different name for the concept). An act that is specifically authorised by the legislature is not in breach of the queen's peace and therefore isn't a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? Manslaughter is the "unlawful killing of a human being without malice" Homicide is not illegal. Certain types of homicide are illegal. For example, a homicide in self defense is perfectly legal. Similarly, executing someone in accordance with the law is perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Javid posted:The following is me being curious: In areas that utilize the death penalty, how are laws regarding premeditated homicide altered to make it legal for the guy who pulls the switch or whatever? Or are they? If this isn't how it's done, how IS it done? a) No malice, so not murder. b) The state is privileged to commit the action as a public policy exception. c) The state action is explicitly authorized by statute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
NoodleBaby posted:I've been fascinated by the "consent" defense since law school but have never gotten a real-life chance to use it. Your situation is the closest I've come. :-) I wonder if you'd have a difficult time arguing consent when you're talking about minors. *see I was beaten* Schattenmann posted:Yeah, I worded that awkwardly. The property belongs to a church/private school, I'm on the committee of a youth organization that is chartered to the church, so I'm allowed to be there; I walk there several times a week and have keys to the building. In other words, as far as a cop showing up and deciding to arrest people, I wouldn't have a problem in terms of trespassing like the kids would. Thus my only concern being in regards to the fight aspect of the scenario. I could see this potentially being used to establish a duty for you as an agent of the church/school. Don't know that it would succeed, just throwing it out there. Were any of these kids students? I'd probably err on the side of caution and tell the kids to move it somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I could see this potentially being used to establish a duty for you as an agent of the church/school. Don't know that it would succeed, just throwing it out there. Were any of these kids students? "Church Official Allows Children's Fight Club On Church Property"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:"Church Official Allows Children's Fight Club On Church Property" Yeah, and the PR thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I wonder if you'd have a difficult time arguing consent when you're talking about minors. I doubt there is an agency relationship, and even so, there is no causation to sustain a negligence claim against him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 19:44
|
|