|
BonerGhost posted:Did you hear a zipper rattle somewhere? Why the gently caress are you talking to me? I'm sorry, I thought this was
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Woozy posted:Okay. Do you have some reason to think the weapon crossed state lines? Tell me where you're going with this, counselor. Wait, you’ve been defending the gun itself this entire time, not the terrorist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Wait, you’ve been defending the gun itself this entire time, not the terrorist? I'm beginning to think you don't want to answer my question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Okay. Do you have some reason to think the weapon crossed state lines? Tell me where you're going with this, counselor. Here's your legal advice: shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Here's your legal advice: shut the gently caress up I have no money to retain you as my attorney, so I will have to pay in, ironically, hot dogs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:
Quickly perusing that statute, I'd guess this section was the fatal flaw quote:
When there are exceptions baked into statutes like that, the burden is upon the prosecution to disprove the exception. That 941.28 looks like it had to do with length of the gun, and I'm phone posting so you can read it yourself. My guess is they thought they got the elements of the crime, but then they forgot about the exception. Did anyone know if the prosecution lost this in motion for directed verdict? Or was it pretrial? If it was directed verdict, then the prosecution literally forgot about the exception and did not put on any evidence to meet their burden in disproving it. In that circumstance, Rittenhouse is entitled to a "directed verdict" which means the judge dismisses that count at the end of the prosecution's presentation of evidence because there is not enough evidence to even let the count go to the jury. That's rare, but happens. I lost one of those motions on a property destruction count because nobody testified the widget was valued at over $750, even though everyone agreed he broke it. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
I can't recall atm but I think the judge dismissed the gun charge because of the length exception before sending the jury off to deliberate. I don't think there was a directed verdict motion but honestly I lost the trail after the prosecution decided to do post arrest silence commentary. Case was a shitshow. Anyways, bring on the legal questions so we can tell you to go talk to an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Quickly perusing that statute, I'd guess this section was the fatal flaw The got all the way to the final discussion on jury instructions (iirc literally minutes before the jury came in to hear closing) and the Judge basically asked the prosecution "can you actually allege that the defendant has breached the basic elements of the statute? No? Okay then that charge is gone."
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Travelling to an entirely different forum to argue about the Rittenhouse case and now they're claiming it's justified? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol yeah convicted murderers are definitely not shunned by society The only one I personally know isn’t completely shunned but on the other hand they can’t practice law despite a Tulane degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The got all the way to the final discussion on jury instructions (iirc literally minutes before the jury came in to hear closing) and the Judge basically asked the prosecution "can you actually allege that the defendant has breached the basic elements of the statute? No? Okay then that charge is gone." Is this normal? Like the judge knows there's going to be a problem but doesn't say anything until the last minute (possibly obstinately to get that charge thrown out). I'm guessing the answer is 'It's not the judge's job to remind the prosecution to do their job'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Is this normal? Like the judge knows there's going to be a problem but doesn't say anything until the last minute (possibly obstinately to get that charge thrown out). I'm guessing the answer is 'It's not the judge's job to remind the prosecution to do their job'. It's not unusual at all for charges to get thrown out but usually that happens midway through the trial where the defence points out 'hey you haven't actually provided any evidence that I committed the crime I was charged with'. Pretty unusual to get right the way to the close of the defence case. e: I think both the Rittenhouse and Arbury trials demonstrate just how much 'video cellphone culture' has changed how criminal justice works. Ten years ago that footage probably doesn't exist and Rittenhouse goes to prison while the Arbery murders walk free. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
**Arbery
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Watching this: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1463592418578731009 Why were there so many counts of felony murder? Wasn't it just one man who got killed? Why were there so many different charges?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:
Because there were multiple felonies (several assaults, unlawful imprisonment) and any one of them can then lead to felony murder, but the jury could have gone guilty/innocent on any combination of those felonies. So for example William Bryan was found innocent of being a part of the first assault charge, so was also innocent of the first felony murder charge, but was guilty of the other three felonies and associated felony murder charges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's not unusual at all for charges to get thrown out but usually that happens midway through the trial where the defence points out 'hey you haven't actually provided any evidence that I committed the crime I was charged with'. Without video, do you think Rittenhouse would even have been looked for, let alone charged? Without video evidence George Floyd would have been a mention in the police blotter as an accidental overdose like the initial report said. Instead, chauvin was finally brought to trial after four days when Minneapolis burned and people in power agreed that this might be a Bad Look and every step of the way people still expected him to get off with a slap on the wrist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Got a fun, low stakes one for you guys. I just received a 1k bill that is 120 days past due from an ophthalmologist I saw back in May, so it’s on its way to collections. There are a couple problems with this bill. The first is that this is the only notice I’ve received of this debt. Their patient portal doesn’t have any of the 30/60/90 day notices. No electronic reminders either. No digital paper trail of an invoice being created prior to 11/17. The second is that they didn’t bill my insurance company at all. They knew I had insurance because they collected my co-pay at each visit. The insurance company information is listed in their portal. I was the auditor (not a lawyer) at a debt collection law firm at a previous job so I am very aware that once it hits a 3rd party collector my only real option is to settle. However, what are the chances I can negotiate the practice into a settlement for the 3rd party settlement amount? Do I have a leg to stand on if I wanted to go to small claims court if necessary? Are monetary damages reasonable for the credit score hit that results from having an account sent to collections? Edit: Chicago, IL as far as jurisdictions. secular woods sex fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Nov 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Okay, a little break with a stupid hypothetical. Say there is a stray cat that has been roaming a neighborhood for years. Many of the people in the neighborhood are friendly with the cat and feed it so it has many "homes". Nobody ever calls animal control because everybody likes the cat and it isn't causing any problems. One day, somebody from the neighborhood decides to take in that stray and unofficially adopt it as their own cat. Another neighbor gets upset at this and wants to adopt it as their own cat. I don't know why. Maybe the neighbors hate each other. If things got bitter and they went to court, how do you legally determine the rightful ownership of a stray animal? is it dependent on the case law of Finders vs. Keepers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Okay, a little break with a stupid hypothetical. Depends on whether they want to Split the Baby on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
secular woods sex posted:Got a fun, low stakes one for you guys. You should pay the doctor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You should pay the doctor. After that, you should bill your insurance company. It's not like the claim has to come from the doctor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Okay, a little break with a stupid hypothetical. Literally the first case we read in my Property class. A Real Old Case posted:Puffendorf, lib. 4. c. 6. s. 2. and 10. defines occupancy of beasts ferć naturć, to be the actual corporal possession of them, and Bynkershoek is cited as coinciding in this definition. Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (Queens County N.Y., 1805)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Literally the first case we read in my Property class. As a non lawyer, I interpret that is "possession is 10/10th of the law". Am I interpreting that correctly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
It's only true for wild animals tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
sullat posted:It's only true for wild animals tho. Wild *and* fugacious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Okay, a little break with a stupid hypothetical. For competing claims to private property, first in time is best in right (unless other grounds for preeminence of claim exists and are forwarded within the time limit).
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 08:46
|
|
|
Section 370 of the Western Australian Criminal Code covers the question of whether wild animals can be stolen, and is incidentally one of my favourite pieces of poetry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Section 370 of the Western Australian Criminal Code covers the question of whether wild animals can be stolen, and is incidentally one of my favourite pieces of poetry. But can wild hearts be broken?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Section 370 of the Western Australian Criminal Code covers the question of whether wild animals can be stolen, and is incidentally one of my favourite pieces of poetry. quote:370. Things capable of being stolen
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
Now THAT'S what I call Statutes volume 39.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
So if I'm a kangaroo rancher, and my roos escape and run free, anyone finding and capturing one of my hoppy lads hasn't stolen it, even if i branded the roo and attached an ear tag with my roo ranch registration? e. also this statute covers sea life including aquatic plants, algae, bacteria, etc., but only land animals, and that's weird Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Nov 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Maybe you could argue if it was born in captivity it's not 'wild by nature' and therefore property even of it's no longer in confinement?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So if I'm a kangaroo rancher, and my roos escape and run free, anyone finding and capturing one of my hoppy lads hasn't stolen it, even if i branded the roo and attached an ear tag with my roo ranch registration? I mean, I think that you’d claim you were still pursuing their recapture?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
You're going to end up pouch deep in 'Roo Law, be careful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So if I'm a kangaroo rancher, and my roos escape and run free, anyone finding and capturing one of my hoppy lads hasn't stolen it, even if i branded the roo and attached an ear tag with my roo ranch registration? The Texas Civil theft (conversion) statute reads, "exercises dominion and control over the property, to the exclusion of the owner" And, "fails to return the property upon demand by the owner" In other words, unless And until you show the roo thief that it's your roo, and you want it back, they haven't converted/stolen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
im askin about stralyan law tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:im askin about stralyan law tho Upon returning a roo or roos, the returnee is entitled to a tinny per roo or a slab if more than 30 roos, payable on delivery or receipt of roos, or by end of the following week. Alternatively, the returnee may offer a pissup at the nearest pub. Any person losing a roo or roos more than once from the same property will be known as a fuckwit tool for a period of 5 years. Outrail fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
ah of course, that's why they have "roo bars", that's where the compensatory beers must be obtained
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
I love the specific exception for tame pigeons outside of their owner's property because you can tell that one definitely exists as a result of something that happened and people fought over
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:ah of course, that's why they have "roo bars", that's where the compensatory beers must be obtained why are you posting this dogshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 02:58
|
|
