|
Is not enforcing a law negligence? I see a million people a day on their phones while driving and the cops refuse to put down their own phones and ticket folks. I was having this thought while biking and was almost killed.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
Beastie posted:Is not enforcing a law negligence? No
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Beastie posted:Is not enforcing a law negligence? I see a million people a day on their phones while driving and the cops refuse to put down their own phones and ticket folks. I was having this thought while biking and was almost killed. The police have no duty whatsoever to protect you in any way unless you are physically in their custody. Cops can, and have, literally watched people drown without providing aid. That’s not their job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
alright I am going to start carrying rocks to huck then
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
Beastie posted:alright I am going to start carrying rocks to huck then https://www.tiktok.com/embed/7352938413424676101
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
I remember there was post earlier in the thread about a mistaken identity subpeona. Well,The Islamic Shock posted:
how does this idiot have a non-zero chance of the presidency 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I remember there was post earlier in the thread about a mistaken identity subpeona. Well, Racism, and a significant dissatisfaction in the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 05:12
|
|
|
This may have been an April Fools thing, but knowing that crosswalk it’s a drat good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 11:26
|
|
|
ChickenDoodle posted:This may have been an April Fools thing, but knowing that crosswalk it’s a drat good idea. It may have started as a joke, but a week in the bricks are apparently still there and effective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It may have started as a joke, but a week in the bricks are apparently still there and effective. As a born and raised Vancouverite, I completely understand why. Reusable, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 12:20
|
|
|
Yeah if you spend any time biking or walking in a city post covid, you will know that the brick post was not an April Fool's post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
If I entered the Capitol on Jan 6 as an independent journalist, with no affiliation to a major news outlet, could I be in legal trouble? Let's say I documented the whole day on my Youtube channel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
Calling oneself an independent journalist does not convey any degree of immunity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
OK, see, judge, I know my buddy was masked and carrying a machete, but *I* entered the liquor store as an independent journalist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
busalover posted:If I entered the Capitol on Jan 6 as an independent journalist, with no affiliation to a major news outlet, could I be in legal trouble? Let's say I documented the whole day on my Youtube channel. I would say you've made the prosecutor's life much easier by putting the whole thing up publicly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
Well, that's interesting. With newsrooms getting smaller and the number of freelancers increasing, that means that coverage of an event like this is basically impossible for most journalists. That's bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 12:12
|
|
|
If one only entered to observe, record, and report on the action and did not otherwise participate un any way, they would probably find some leniency. Absolutely none of “journalists” who were rioting with everyone else is going to be afforded any protection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 12:17
|
|
|
busalover posted:Well, that's interesting. With newsrooms getting smaller and the number of freelancers increasing, that means that coverage of an event like this is basically impossible for most journalists. That's bad. The root issue is that "journalist" is not any sort of protected identity or class, legally speaking. I'm a journalist posting here. Everyone is a journalist. Everyone has first amendment rights but nobody has special speech protections over anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 12:29
|
|
|
Sorry if I'm going off the current topic, but it really interests me: I've seen more than one movie where someone is on trail for something, then there's a twist a different person is arrested for the same crime, but the first trial continues and they have to be found not guilty. This is inclusive of crimes where there can only really be one person responsible. So I have a few questions and please feel free to answer as many or as few as you wish. Thank you. 1. In what way(s) does the fact that the police arrested someone else for the crime you are on trial for help the defendant? Does it just lead to reasonable doubt or is it grounds for a mistrial? 2. Can a person be charged with a crime if another person is already on trial for said crime? If so, does the person awaiting trial get off as soon as someone else is convicted? 3. If a person is still under investigation for a crime someone else is on trial for, does the investigation have to cease the moment the other person is convicted? 4. Can you start an investigation and arrest someone for a crime someone has already been convicted of, if e.g. the police authorities and DA and alter a judge all sign off? Or is there a principle or body of law preventing this? 5. Can a case go to trial if someone has already been convicted of the same crime? (I don't mean as an accomplice or a second person doing a similar crime.) If so, is the fact that someone else has already been convicted for the crime you're charged with grounds for dismissal or merely a defense? (I'm obviously presuming you cannot be found guilty and sentenced. At some point there has to be a mechanism to prevent that but I'm not sure if that's an automatic dismissal, or a defense which is a jury discounts gets the judge involved, or an appeal.) In all of the above I'm referring to how it works legally and not in some miscarriage of justice. Bright Bart fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:08
|
|
|
busalover posted:If I entered the Capitol on Jan 6 as an independent journalist, with no affiliation to a major news outlet, could I be in legal trouble? Let's say I documented the whole day on my Youtube channel. Committing a crime doesn't become not a crime because you call yourself a journalist. I think the angle that you have intuitively hit on but not understood to ask is the notion of mens rea or intent. In your mind, your question is really whether the intent of why your are there is a defense to prosecution. The answer is no. Ultimately, the question of intent is whether or not you intended to commit the act that was illegal. Your motivations for doing so are not relevant for criminal liability. However, that intent might be mitigating factors in sentencing. Likewise, police and prosecutors with limited resources may decide that it's not particularly worth their time to pursue and prosecute somebody from "realnews /youtube.com" who's pretty obviously not participating in the 'festivities.' Likewise, a judge and or a jury may find it compelling that one was simply there to observe, And may hand down a reduced sentence, or recommend probation from the bench.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
Bright Bart posted:Sorry if I'm going off the current topic, but it really interests me: For crimes where "i didn't do it" is a complete defense, My Cousin Vinny is a fairly accurate depiction of what would happen; as soon as the cops arrest someone else, the prosecutor would typically dismiss the charge, which they can do at any point prior to actual conviction, and that would end the trial without the need for an actual jury verdict. For some crimes though, proving another guy did it doesn't mean you didn't *also* do it or weren't also involved somehow. E.g., proving Bob shot the clerk doesn't mean Jim isn't legally also responsible for the robbery and murder (if, e.g., he helped plan it, or drove the getaway car, etc.). In that kind of situation there's still a trial to be had to prove Jim's innocence, because Jim's innocence is a separate question from Bob's guilt. There's no restriction I'm aware of on what the police or prosecutors can investigate. It would be fairly rare for the same prosecutor to go "well, I hosed up, gonna re-investigate that conviction I got" though. Typically you only see that sort of situation when there's a new prosecutor elected and he goes back and revisits old cases -- that's the sort of thing you see the Innocence Project get involved in. Anyone prosecuted on a charge that someone else had been convicted on probably could raise that as a defense, yes. Typically prosecutors would first get a judge to dismiss or overturn the old charges first to forestall that line of defense. It's fairly rare for new prosecutions to happen though in that sort of innocence-project situation. They don't go back forty years and re-try the case. The root issue you seem to be coming up against (and perhaps overcomplicating) is that the police and prosecutor are, for court purposes, basically all the same entity, one sports team working together towards one goal. Just like the coach doesn't have the team try to get two different balls down the field at once, the police don't pursue two separate, contradictory defendants at once; they pick one and go after that one. If they pick a different one they typically just drop the first one. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Committing a crime doesn't become not a crime because you call yourself a journalist. Aha, ok thanks. Just to clarify, I'm not looking for an angle to reduce the sentencing of the rioters. I'm genuinely curious about the situation of someone covering the event, and the fact that some coverage might be off limits or associated with legal repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The root issue you seem to be coming up against (and perhaps overcomplicating) is that the police and prosecutor are, for court purposes, basically all the same entity, one sports team working together towards one goal. Just like the coach doesn't have the team try to get two different balls down the field at once, the police don't pursue two separate, contradictory defendants at once; they pick one and go after that one. If they pick a different one they typically just drop the first one. Thank you for the response! As for an additional person being guilty, I understand. But lets say there's a masked streaker during a football game. (imagine there's taking this really seriously for some reason, I just like this example because it's not sad.) Joe is arrested and tried and found guilty of being the masked streaker. But then a separate investigator brings it up with a separate DA and a separate judge (we can imagine that the first one is retiring and not hearing new issues just to make it easier) and all agree that Owen is much more likely to be the streaker and so arrest, charge, and send him to trial. Again, for being the masked streaker. Not for helping Joe or instigating the streaking. Does Owen get off the moment Joe is convicted? In my example, the prosecutor doesn't want to drop the charges against Owen. He believes the evidence (e.g. analysis of moles on the streaker's body) much more clearly points to Owen than Joe. This is overcomplicating it for sure. I'm not asking whether I have to worry about being arrested for a crime someone else obviously committed. I'm just wondering if it all relies on the common sense of the authorities or if there is something explicit in the law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Like HA said - prosecutors can drop charges at any time. If they do not, then the onus is on the defense to move to dismiss, either orally during trial or via written motion, and the judge will grant the motion if meritorious. E:also, yeah, two different jurisdictions won’t both prosecute for reasons HA explains below. I was more responding to the mechanism of dismissal. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
There wouldn't be a separate investigator or DA because only one police department and prosecutor would have jurisdiction to prosecute. Like, let's say they streak a stadium, sure. That stadium is going to be in a specific jurisdiction and there will be one specific police department and prosecutor's office that has jurisdiction. They'll investigate and pick a defendant and prosecute. Sometimes you have overlapping jurisdictions but then generally one controls and takes over (e.g., the feds coming in) and the others do what they're told. So the only way this sort of scenario could happen would be either Rogue Cop who's been Taken Off the Case, or twenty years later a new DA is investigating old cases because someone made him (innocence project situation). But at any given time there will only be one DA with authority over the case. That DA might change but you'd never have a two conflicting DAs at once situation. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Like HA said - prosecutors can drop charges at any time. If they do not, then the onus is on the defense to move to dismiss, either orally during trial or via written motion, and the judge will grant the motion if meritorious. Because I can see cases where the prosecutors might not wish to. Such as if the person simultaneously committed crimes that would be investigated by and trailed through different systems such as federal charges investigated by the FBI and others by local police. Then if the two parties come to entirely different conclusions as to the identity of a person... Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sometimes you have overlapping jurisdictions but then generally one controls and takes over (e.g., the feds coming in) and the others do what they're told. Ah. Didn't catch that before posting the above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
Bright Bart posted:
Right. Like theoretically you could have a Rogue Cop Investigation but he'd have to go to the same DA and convince that same DA (or federal prosecutor) that his version was right. Then the prosecutor would pick a theory and go with it. edit: you're asking a good question, this stuff can get complicated. Like in theory you could have state prosecution on some charges from the incident (drug possession) and federal prosecution on other charges (guns, drug distribution) and those could be pending in parallel at the same time. But in practice what happens then is the state charges go into limbo until the federal case is resolved, because the state doesn't want to risk loving up the federal case somehow by accidentally creating any of the scenarios you've mentioned. also practically speaking if the feds are involved you're going to jail; the local cops *usually* gently caress up something about your case and get things wrong, but federal prosecutors have some sort of absurd conviction rate, like 99%. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 13:44
|
|
|
I could see someone getting away with being at a J6 style event as a reporter, but there would need to be serious evidence. In addition to immediate voluntary cooperation, stuff like a legitimate history as a reporter, lack of evidence of involvement in any kind of planning or association with any of the groups involved behind the event, actually attempting to persuade people to stop before continuing to pursue them and document their activities, etd
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right. Like theoretically you could have a Rogue Cop Investigation but he'd have to go to the same DA and convince that same DA (or federal prosecutor) that his version was right. Then the prosecutor would pick a theory and go with it. You could also have two states that both claim jurisdiction, like if the crime occurred in one state but there was a victim who was a resident of the other state. I think there was a Law & Order episode about this, with the New York and New Jersey DAs wanting to charge two different people for the same murders. I assume in real life they'd try a lot harder to get their poo poo sorted out before any charges were filed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:You could also have two states that both claim jurisdiction, like if the crime occurred in one state but there was a victim who was a resident of the other state. I think there was a Law & Order episode about this, with the New York and New Jersey DAs wanting to charge two different people for the same murders. I assume in real life they'd try a lot harder to get their poo poo sorted out before any charges were filed. Sometimes yeah you'll have things like "drug bust in one county, then search the home in a different county and find more drugs" or "hot pursuit that crosses county lines" etc. Like, these situations can arise. Normally, though, there's a strong incentive for whichever county or jurisdiction has the more serious charges to just take over, and everyone else sits back and lets the most serious charges drive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=partof:u.s.+reports:+volume+001 Did the Articles of Confederation have a Supreme Court? Why is a Supreme Court referenced in U.S. Reports: Appointments, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 32 (1776). ? Why does the Library of Congress date the first volume of US Reports to 1754 when the first item is from 1776? Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
Burma Shave
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 07:53
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=partof:u.s.+reports:+volume+001 There was no federal judicial branch per se under the Articles of Confederation. Congress itself was to be a final court for any dispute between states, with the Articles envisioning the legislature basically appoint learned lawyers as “judges” (more like what we’d think of today as arbitrators) to this court which is more of a legislative subcommittee. As to the US Reports, and I’m doing this while on a coffee break so please don’t hold me to the specific little details, as an inherited thing from the British legal system, the Reporter of Decisions of the Court was basically a sinecure position given to private printers. This changed in, I believe, either the late 1790s or early 1800s. To this day, the very early Reports are referred to by their printer’s name, so you’ll see citations to early cases to “2 Dallas” or “3 Cranch”. And some of these printers, to try to make the books more comprehensive or useful, would add pre-Constitution, even pre-independence decisions from state or colonial supreme courts. I’m betting that the 1754 (and 1776) references in the LoC entry is to such cases in that particular Report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 11:35
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:There was no federal judicial branch per se under the Articles of Confederation. Congress itself was to be a final court for any dispute between states, with the Articles envisioning the legislature basically appoint learned lawyers as “judges” (more like what we’d think of today as arbitrators) to this court which is more of a legislative subcommittee. This is yet another reason I love this site. Someone can ask an obscure, super nerdy question about historical legal things, and get a thoughtful and informative answer promptly. I had no idea about any of this, and get to learn for a one time tenbux. "Ask the pig balls site" factor ftw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:There was no federal judicial branch per se under the Articles of Confederation. Congress itself was to be a final court for any dispute between states, with the Articles envisioning the legislature basically appoint learned lawyers as “judges” (more like what we’d think of today as arbitrators) to this court which is more of a legislative subcommittee. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports,_volume_1 It’s a bunch of PA state court cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:There was no federal judicial branch per se under the Articles of Confederation. Congress itself was to be a final court for any dispute between states, with the Articles envisioning the legislature basically appoint learned lawyers as “judges” (more like what we’d think of today as arbitrators) to this court which is more of a legislative subcommittee. You can tell this guy went to smart person school
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 04:51
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You can tell this guy went to smart person school I’m basically tall Tyrion Lannister. I drink and I know things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 06:53
|
|
|
What kind of attorney would be needed to approach a company bankruptcy's plan administrator? There's a bankruptcy going on that a lot of people are paying attention to and fantasizing about short squeezes and loving wall street... And a foreign guy (lawyer, I think?) claiming to be an expert on fraud just came along and told everyone they're gullible idiots and there's no sign of a magical company revival happening but based on things like former leadership buying stock before and then selling after buybacks, he thinks there's a real chance of people getting fraud settlements out of court if they hire their own lawyers instead of sitting around waiting for a dead company to come out of bankruptcy. He's shared some of his correspondence with the bankruptcy plan administrator and then said he had to hire his own counsel that can practice here and stopped giving any more details but for weeks afterwards has continued to emphasize it's important for others to do the same if they want to get any money out of it. Some contacted him directly and he still refused to give any details but still seemed satisfied at his decision to hire legal representation and continued to strongly recommend that others do so. My understanding is that a lawyer capable of asking the right questions to understand the situation in a corporate bankruptcy case will cost like $20k per hour or something insane up front, but my buddy is a shareholder and has enough shares that a settlement would be worth a few million dollars. If that can be done out of court then it seems like it would be relatively quick since I thought the court process is what usually makes things drag out. So how to find him an actual expert that can confirm the facts and let him know him if there's actually potential there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 13:30
|
|
|
I don't know bankruptcy, but I do know what a flag is, and what the color red looks like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
If you need a bankruptcy attorney and have no idea where to start, you can Google "state bar association referral service." Call the line or navigate the referral website looking for a bankruptcy attorney and start calling their offices until you find one that will take your case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 14:10
|
|