|
Foxfire_ posted:Most US state law is that you have to maintain enough distance to stop without collision if the person in front stops abruptly. So if the person in front of you hits something and you don't have enough space to stop before hitting them (because you're following too close for icy roads), you are at least partially at fault. If you do stop and then the person behind you pushes you into them, you wouldn't be. I was more wondering about those mass pileups where cars are stopped, then a truck comes along and hits one car and sets off a chain reaction where 6 more cars that were stopped (some already damaged, some not) get hit, and then it happens 20 more times and gets to the point where it's next to impossible to determine who hit who and who is at fault. edit: a little googling says it is a huge mess and the insurance companies do long investigations and get it all sorted out amongst themselves. Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 3, 2021 |
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also don't let your cats outside. They're devastating to local wildlife. I strongly question how much this matters given the various other apololypsi we've been kicking off, but I respect the sentiment. bird with big dick posted:I assume nearly everyone files against their own insurance. A lot of the people are guilty of driving too fast for conditions, failure to maintain control, etc. Gonna probably be tough to prove otherwise without a dash cam. As I understand it, in some states there is law setting strict liability on the rear driver hitting the person in front of them, regardless of circumstances. So not just safe follow, but safe "plowed into from behind" stopped distance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Strong moustache energy off this post Such power comes with great responsibility. blarzgh posted:To me the joke was removing the indicator that the comments were about animals I just saw I was quoted and didn't notice your edit.  Devor posted:If they’re livestock then damages would be much higher and easier to prove. I wonder if animal husbandry law is as popular as tree law. Harold Fjord posted:I strongly question how much this matters given the various other apololypsi we've been kicking off, but I respect the sentiment. I mean, nothing really matters, we're all hosed, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:As I understand it, in some states there is law setting strict liability on the rear driver hitting the person in front of them, regardless of circumstances. So not just safe follow, but safe "plowed into from behind" stopped distance. Harold Fjord posted:I strongly question how much this matters given the various other apololypsi we've been kicking off, but I respect the sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Surely the debilitating effects of climate change make it more important to keep your cat from slaughtering the local bird population, not less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
Ariong posted:Surely the debilitating effects of climate change make it more important to keep your cat from slaughtering the local bird population, not less. The difference is really visible over a short period of time. People in my neighborhood stopped letting their cats outside once the coyotes established themselves in a nearby park, and it took two years, max, for birds like cardinals and blue jays and finches to take over what was previously sparrow/crow/pigeon turf. (Of course there were always robins, because robins give no fucks at all.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:The difference is really visible over a short period of time. People in my neighborhood stopped letting their cats outside once the coyotes established themselves in a nearby park, and it took two years, max, for birds like cardinals and blue jays and finches to take over what was previously sparrow/crow/pigeon turf. Is it easier for cats to catch cardinals, blue jays, and finches? I don't understand why certain kinds of birds would be effected more than others. Maybe they just taste better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:California seems to be this way. Is there any sort of objective limitations to this or is it set in stone (or, worse, up the police investigators discretion)? Because if I was in CA at a light and got plowed into by an idiot on a cell phone doing 50 I would be plenty pissed to have the guy in front of me’s insurance coming after me because I didn’t maintain the ~100 yard spacing that it’d actually take to not get pushed into him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
Tbh now that I think more about the grandpa story, he might have been bitching about getting in an accident while vacationing in CA. Gonna have to mark it as plausible at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
As to pileup chat, this exact thing happened to me a while ago in Florida. Was stopped at a red and the guy behind me was so drunk he didn't even slow down before hitting me doing around 45. I was pushed into the in front of me and the insurance company for the guy who hit me had to pay for everything. This was also his 3rd DUI without a license for previous DUIs or something, for what that could be worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Usually the “rear-ending vehicle is at fault” is a rebuttable presumption.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:As I understand it, in some states there is law setting strict liability on the rear driver hitting the person in front of them, regardless of circumstances. So not just safe follow, but safe "plowed into from behind" stopped distance. Does this mean if I'm stopped on a street and somebody plows into me hard enough to launch me into orbit I'm liable for damages to the ISS? Huge amount of hyperbole obviously, but how do you determine 'safe from being plowed into'? A Mac truck could push a hatchback quite a distance and plow though several cars, so this seems pretty unfair and illogical unless there's some kind of limit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Does this mean if I'm stopped on a street and somebody plows into me hard enough to launch me into orbit I'm liable for damages to the ISS? This isn't as far fetched as you think. Google the case of Miller v. Jackson. I think you'll find it extremely leg before wicket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Is it easier for cats to catch cardinals, blue jays, and finches? I don't understand why certain kinds of birds would be effected more than others. Maybe they just taste better. Sparrows are very small and very fast. Pidgeons and crows are about the same size as a small housecat, and in the case of crows have a good chance of winning a fight with one and a good memory of where predators live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Does this mean if I'm stopped on a street and somebody plows into me hard enough to launch me into orbit I'm liable for damages to the ISS? Most negligence analysis here will be 1. Were you negligent and 2. Did your negligence cause the injury. So if you are stopped and you stopped far enough away from the other person and you were stopped for a long enough time and your brakes worked etc etc etc...then bingo, you weren’t negligent. No recovery against you no matter how far you fly when someone who actually was negligent hit you. Second would be huh, you maybe were negligent in some way, but had the guy not hit you then everything would have been fine. Presto, your negligence didn’t cause the injury, so you aren’t liable. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Okay, super random hypothetical, here. I just watched a Scooby-Doo episode with my daughter where a guy gets hypnotized into burning down his own house. Is this a crime? What could be they be charged with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:Okay, super random hypothetical, here. I just watched a Scooby-Doo episode with my daughter where a guy gets hypnotized into burning down his own house. Is this a crime? What could be they be charged with? in general, most serious crimes require voluntary acts and anything that makes your actions involuntary through no fault of your own (e.g.: you can't get blackout drunk on your own and use that as an excuse) is likely to be a defense if you mean what do we charge the hypnotist with, well, our law doesn't really work well for impossible things so if mind control was possible we'd probably want to make it a crime e: but yeah i'm sure there's poo poo you could charge them with eke out fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's illegal as such to burn down your own house. You'd have to make sure you don't try to get insurance money or break ancillary laws about endangering neighbors or fires within city limits or what have you, but I don't think you'd end up in prison for arson or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
The hypnotist would be easily charged and convicted imho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Hypnotism can't make you do things you aren't predisposed towards. Essentially the state of hypnosis gives you a sense of freedom to be silly and act like a chicken or what have you, but can't force you to, so a hypnotist would never be liable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
If someone tells you to burn down a house and gives you instructions and you do it they are liable for many crimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:I'm not sure it's illegal as such to burn down your own house. You'd have to make sure you don't try to get insurance money or break ancillary laws about endangering neighbors or fires within city limits or what have you, but I don't think you'd end up in prison for arson or anything like that. Destruction of property, endangerment of fire crews and generalized fire safety violation as well as pollution are all crimes, yes. Where I practice you can also be charged with "arson light" which is negilgently or intentionally burning any building or structure including your own. Also there's possibility for attempt of the above or arson. All sorts of fact dependant nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I did a poor job of framing the original question. It's less about charging the hypnotist, or even knowing that there's a hypnotist involved, but more of what to do with the guy burning his own house down. if the cops rolled up to a house fire to see some guy on the front lawn saying "a hypnotist made me burn down my house!", and you weren't in Scooby-Doo World, could the cops even charge him with destruction of property or putting his neighbors houses at risk, or some such. I think the core question is, is destroying your own property a crime? at what point did you need to do it in a violent or dangerous enough fashion for it to become a crime. Edit: Nice piece of fish posted:Destruction of property, endangerment of fire crews and generalized fire safety violation as well as pollution are all crimes, yes. Where I practice you can also be charged with "arson light" which is negilgently or intentionally burning any building or structure including your own. Also there's possibility for attempt of the above or arson. All sorts of fact dependant nonsense. This was exactly the sort of response I was looking for. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Wait a second, if they charged the hypnotist, then realistically, they would have to charge the person who burned the house down. See, if Lothar the Magnificent was so magnificent that he could make someone burn their house down, then why didn't he hypnotize the police or the DA to keep them from filing charges. The fact that we are able to charge Lothar and have an easily hypnotizable jury find him guilty is proof that he is not guilty and therefore we must charge the man who burned his house down!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
if hypnostims actually existed as it does in fantasy stories or whatever, the hypnotized person would have no liability under current laws but as someone mentioned above - if hypnotism existed- the laws would be different also if the person hypnotized agreed to be hypnotized to carry out the crime, that is also liability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:if hypnostims actually existed as it does in fantasy stories or whatever, the hypnotized person would have no liability under current laws but as someone mentioned above - if hypnotism existed- the laws would be different It would be a disturbance of the consciousness such that the insanity defence would apply for my jurisdoction. If hypnotism was real. Under actio libera in causa agreeing to be hypnotized might be criminal liability such as with substances yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
The case of hypnotism in the court room was briefly discussed in Season 3 Episode 2 of Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law with Shado the Brain Thief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Arson is arson because fire is dangerous and doesn't respect property limits. Also people setting fire to their own insured property is not some strange hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Arson is arson because fire is dangerous and doesn't respect property limits. If Arson requires malicious intent, is burning down your own property for fun considered Arson? Or is it just negligent burning, like having a big illegal bonfire in your yard
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Devor posted:If Arson requires malicious intent, is burning down your own property for fun considered Arson? The intent need not be malicious. If you intentionally damage a building with fire unlawfully, it's arson. As people mentioned, because fire spreads unpredictably, pollutes, and can damage with smoke alone, fire has laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
homullus posted:The intent need not be malicious. If you intentionally damage a building with fire unlawfully, it's arson. As people mentioned, because fire spreads unpredictably, pollutes, and can damage with smoke alone, fire has laws. My jurisdiction and common law says arson is "maliciously" - isn't that an intent requirement? I agree that a burning can be unlawful because it's dangerous, but that's not arson from what I see. Edit: nope, I'm wrong, it's just weird quote:Malicious
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Devor posted:If Arson requires malicious intent, is burning down your own property for fun considered Arson? Arson does not require malicious intent in some places, but the legal definition varies by jursidiction. In my (former) jurisdiction it was: quote:§ 3301. Arson and related offenses. No malicious intent required. Some states specify it must be some other person's property, some I think even specify it must be a dwelling. Our degrees go down i no one was endangered to "Arson Endangering Property" to Reckless burning/dangerous burning/failure to control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Is it easier for cats to catch cardinals, blue jays, and finches? I don't understand why certain kinds of birds would be effected more than others. Maybe they just taste better. Birds don't like to build nests in places swarming with lethal predators, especially ones they can observe climbing trees. Some birds are too stupid to understand this (the mourning doves in my neighborhood) and some are too clever and resourceful for cats to actually threaten (the crows and mockingbirds in my neighborhood - corvids are smart as hell) but a lot of birds will vacate a neighborhood where there's cats around. Outdoor cats also spread feline leukemia and FIV, both of which are slowly lethal and not nice to have around; as well as fleas, ticks, worms, and other parasites. If you care about the cats, or about the wildlife, it's best to keep them inside. That said: a lot of recent research shows that TNR - trap, neuter, release - is a more effective way of controlling outdoor housecat populations than the previous common practice of just catching and destroying ferals. The presence of sterilized cats, particularly the males, stakes out territory that is low in breeding options, so the odd intact cat produces fewer kittens over time. Eventually the whole local population ages out, and maybe that can ultimately result in no more feral cats in an area. If you just try to kill them all, a few escape, they find each other and breed, and you get new explosions in populations of intact feral cats. Additionally, cat-lovers won't cooperate with programs that just catch and kill the cats, so people actively undermine the effectiveness of such approaches. So, at our house we have a feral female we got fixed who lives 100% outdoors and will not come near us even though we've been feeding her for years; and we have a male outdoor cat that is ready for adoption, if we can find someone willing to take a FIV+ cat who has never been indoors and while super friendly and cuddly, doesn't understand things like "people's skin is fragile" so he'll scratch you by accident. This is not ideal, since these two cats undoubtedly take their toll on local birds, or at the very least deter the more timid ones; but it's better than just having them both destroyed. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If someone tells you to burn down a house and gives you instructions and you do it they are liable for many crimes. But what if instead of a house, its a federal building and a governing body? Pretty sure there's recent precedent that this is OK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Wouldn’t it be basically impossible to prove that the crime was committed because of the hypnotism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
remigious posted:Wouldn’t it be basically impossible to prove that the crime was committed because of the hypnotism? depends, are you accepting the premise that Fantasy Hypnotism actually exists or not i bet there's a lot of recidivism among people who can use it for mind control, the guy's probably got some priors
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
I gotta imagine there's plenty of potential American jurors who 100% believe hypnotism is literal mind control so maybe it'd be worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Can Scooby-Doo testify in court or is his testimony inadmissible despite otherwise having speech and human-level intelligence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
my male cat has a chronic urinary tract problem that might require intensive surgery if he gets backed up again, and keeping him indoors all the time is actually detrimental to his health checkmate libs suck it let your cats roam free
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:my male cat has a chronic urinary tract problem that might require intensive surgery if he gets backed up again, and keeping him indoors all the time is actually detrimental to his health Clean your cat's litterbox
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2021 00:17
|
|