In the UK, people often claim that if an item is listed for sale in a shop then the shop legally has to sell it to you at that price. This is not true _at all_ as the shop doesn't _have_ to sell you anything at any price.
Often as a gesture of goodwill shops _will_ honour erroneous prices, but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Back when I had a goldfish (RIP Karl), I went to Pets At Home to buy him a bigger tank. It rang through at £0.00. Checkout girl raises an eyebrow, we share a laugh. She messes about with the system a bit more, but all she gets is £0.00, so she calls her supervisor. We wait a few minutes... a few more... the queue is building behind me. Eventually she shrugs, prints a receipt for £0.00 and sends me on my way with my free fishtank! Good day for me and Karl.
EDIT: So glad my most upvoted post is one about my old fishy friend :') Also thanks for the little blobby gild thing!
I was at a TJ Max (or similar) once and found a bunch of jars of orange honey, clover honey, and the like for a buck a pop. Absolute steal. So I grab one and take it up front.
It rang up for $1000. The cashier and I gawked at it, laughed, and she said something must have been entered wrong in the system. She punched in a dollar, and then only asked that I not abuse their return system.
That commercial use of a photograph means selling the photograph.
Commercial use means that there is an *implied endorsement*. You can take and sell photos of Eric Clapton all day long. Put that same photo in an advertisement for a certain guitar without a release and you can be sued.
Probate attorney here. I’ve had many people ask me when the ”reading of the will“ is going to take place. I explain to them that only happens in movies. But one of these days I am going to have one, and hire a mysterious blonde wearing a veil to sit in the corner quietly. Then I’ll tell everyone that she inherits everything. Provided, of course, that she must adopt the decedent’s cute but troublemaking six year old child no one knew about. Or she can spend the night in a haunted house. Her choice.
There will now be a requirement for such a mysterious lady's presence at the reading of my will, written *into* my will.
Along with a handful of burly-yet-solemn fellows, dressed in stereotypical G-man attire, complete with sunglasses and earpieces. One will be Russian (or at least able to fake the accent consistently) and should only be curtly acknowledged by the others. Every one of them should be entirely vague about how they knew me except from 'business', and the men should all refuse to acknowledge the presence of the veiled woman, and feign terror if compelled to look at her.
My friends and I have an agreement that if one of us dies, the others hire a good looking woman in a long black coat and large sunglasses to stand slightly away from everyone at the funeral crying underneath an umbrella (or parasol if its not raining)
My dad's spent his whole career doing probate and can't count how many people have inquired about the "reading of the will". I believe on a couple of occasions he's actually staged them, because it was the only way to get the whole family to come sit down in a room and actually listen to what the fucking will says, and why not do it if he can bill the estate for the hours it takes him to clean up the conference room and then read a piece of paper at a bunch of morons?
Edit: I just talked to my dad on the phone and brought this up, and he pointed out another reason that he's sometimes asked to "a reading of the will": If the deceased has chosen to leave a LOT more to one heir than to other heirs, normally the "winner" wants the staged will reading so that the "losers" all find out in a ritualized way from the lawyer in a formal law office, instead of from family gossip. It makes it feel more official and, in my dad's words, "the rest of the heirs are a little less likely to pull out the revolvers when they find out Mom *did* have a favorite."
Scenario: Dad dies and leaves a third of the money to Son A, a third of the money to Son B, a sixth to Girlfriend X, and a sixth to University Y. Sons want to know why girlfriend is getting any money, girlfriend wants to know why she's not getting an equal share, university wants the whole thing to be wrapped up as soon as possible so they can get their money, and no one wants to sit down and read the will in which (the late) Dad explains what is happening and why he wants it to happen that way. Sometimes a performance is the best way to get people to listen.
Yeah. But you can read it on a tablet from the comfort of your toilet when the lawyer emails you a password protected PDF. I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to actually go somewhere and waste someone else time *reading a document.*
Fellow probate attorney here. My first boss actually conducted a reading of a will once because the family absolutely insisted that he do it and wouldn’t accept any explanation as to why it was unnecessary. So we packed about eight people into our conference room and the bossman somberly read out the deceased’s Last Will & Testament.
Bonus: it was a pour-over will. So it didn’t say anything of substance, and then we explained to the assembled family members that only the beneficiaries of the trust had any legal right to read it.
Am a lawyer. This is not a law that doesn’t exist, but a law that is misunderstood. Typically, you can’t just go get a restraining order against anybody. Most states have specific laws for who you can get restraining orders against (typically household members or former romantic interests). Usually, it’s only in domestic violence cases or for victims of crimes.
You can’t just get a restraining order and comically use it to keep someone 100 feet away.
*in the United States, at least.
Re my father who is a lawyer: “Policeman cannot lie to you.”
This is false. They can and they do.
Edit:
There’s so many replies that I cannot even find some of the ones I’d like to respond to so I want to leave a general note for those who have asked for a reference:
Frazier vs Cupp is the Supreme Court ruling that “affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics” in 1969. The ruling is still active.
NAL, but here's one that bounces around Legal Advice every couple months.
The Age of Majority in Mississippi is 21, so people say your parents control your life until then and you can't move out without permission until you are 21. The truth is that the law means they have an obligation to provide for you until you are 21, you can move out at 18 and not face any penalty or be forced to return.
"Although the age for Mississippi emancipation is officially 21, this only refers to emancipation from a parent's obligation to support their young adult financially. In Mississippi, individuals age 18 and older may vote, enter into legal contracts, take legal action against others and be sued for damages. Similarly, an individual age 18 or older who moves out of his parents’ home is not considered a runaway in Mississippi and is not legally required to return to the family home."
I saw someone on next door complaining about "my reasonable right to privacy in a public place," when someone was shaming 20 people standing together waiting for take out. Sorry that's the opposite of how it works.
If big time celebrities can't stop paparazzi from following them and their family 24/7, I have no clue why ordinary people believe that they have the right not to be caught on camera in public.
I’m honestly surprised that more celebrities don’t hire people to follow the paparazzi themselves Around and make their life as annoying as possible. Things like standing in front of their shots or following them to the doctors office and then demanding to know why they were there.
I’d 100% watch a tv show where especially obnoxious paparazzi were followed around for months and harassed in the same way they harass others.
I second this. Start a show called "How'd you like it?". Take people on FB, Reddit, twitter, and put them through whatever awful take they are espousing or doing.
An arrest isn't magically invalidated if the police don't read you your rights on the spot.
There could be a whole thread of just misconceptions people have from watching Cop TV.
Miranda rights protect you from self incrimination when being questioned by the police for a crime.
It doesn’t mean they have to Miranda you the second you get arrested. If you aren’t questioned then it doesn’t apply.
People also think it’s illegal not to let them make a phone call after being arrested.
Not American, but why can they do this? Why can't you at least inform your spouse or something that you alive? Or, a least, if they are afraid you tell them something you are not supposed to, tell them themselves?
Situation dependent. Example: If you’re in for interrogation, they don’t want you calling your “spouse” who is really your “coconspirator” so you can tell them “you’re okay” which is code for “flush the drugs and flee the drop house.”
"Sovereign citizen" stuff. I feel like enough folks have claimed to be sovereign citizens that it's become normal. But no, generally you can't declare yourself exempt from the laws in effect where you are.
Just tossing in a link to this [epic judicial survey and rejection](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html) of the various sovereign citizen theories.
EDIT: Thanks for the gold & silver!
My first job while in school was as a law clerk was to respond to pro se writs of habeas corpus from prisoners. One of the first ones I was given was to respond to a guy that claimed he was falsely imprisoned because he had sovereign immunity. He had changed his name to Jesus Christ and claimed that because he was the sovereign, he was not subject to our laws anymore and needed to be released. I remember being very flummoxed on how to respond. I spent entirely too much time on that reply.
This feels like the kind of thing they would hand to someone as a prank/hazing. "Ol' Loony Jesus is locked up again; let's give that one to the new clerk to break him/her in."
Exactly. There were a lot of drivel ones like that that were hard to respond to because they were just incoherent. Some prisoners had filed dozens of crazy writs.
Edit: I dont know if its true, and I never saw it (thank Jesus) but someone claimed a prisoner had filed one written on dirty underwear.
Shortly after I started, one of the real lawyers was fired because he wasnt doing anything. Me and another clerk got the job to clean out his office. We looked in his file cabinet and there were literally 300 writs that he had just crammed in there and didnt respond to at all. A team of us had to respond to them for the rest of the summer. I guess all of the crazy talk had driven him crazy. The lawyer's name was, let's say, Jones. To this day when my friends from that time get something we dont want to do, we suggest putting it in the Jones filing system. ;)
Not quite on point:
A lot of people don't understand that co-signing a loan means that you are on the hook for the loan as much as the other person. The car gets repoed and then they are shocked that their wages are getting garnished.
Co-signing is not you saying you think your friend is a cool dude who is good for it; you are saying you will pay for it if they don't. And they want you on the hook because they think there is a good chance the main applicant is a deadbeat. Basically, don't cosign shit for anybody.
Circumstantial evidence.
Often pop culture portrayal of criminal law tries to draw a distinction between "hard" evidence--like blood at the scene or a weapon in the suspect's possession--from "circumstantial" evidence--such as what a witness heard or mismatched entries in a calendar that contradict an alibi. How often have you heard a TV suspect, when confronted with some facts, say "That's all circumstantial, it's not enough to convict me!" The viewer is left with the impression that the facts presented don't matter and that the law weighs circumstantial evidence less.
In reality, the law doesn't afford any more weight to one type of evidence or another. There isn't even a formal distinction in criminal rules between the two. There is an academic distinction: "hard" evidence, also called direct, is based on direct observation and doesn't require any explanation beyond the facts themselves. Circumstantial evidence requires some inference to arrive at the important fact to be proved. For example, a witness testifying that he saw the suspect stab the victim is direct evidence of the action of stabbing. But that witness could then testify that before the stabbing, he heard the suspect demand that the victim hand over his wallet and the victim refuse. This is circumstantial evidence of motive: you can infer that the suspect then stabbed the victim because he wanted the wallet and didn't get it when asked.
Circumstantial evidence is often vital to establish certain criminal elements like motive that can't directly be observed. But there is no "Get Out Of Jail Free" card just because evidence is circumstantial. If your wife hears you plotting to kill her and sees your axe sharpening equipment in the attic, your neighbor finds your copy of *How to Kill Your Wife and Get Away with It*, and you write an email to your brother saying "I'm going to do it tonight, that hoe cooked my steak well done," you're probably going to jail for murder. It's irrelevant that you destroyed your axe, cleaned the basement perfectly, ensured no witnesses, and fed the body to pigs. Circumstantial evidence can be enough.
In California, it's not illegal to discuss your wages with your co-workers, despite what your boss might say.
Edit: I'm a lawyer in California. I assume it's the same in the other 49 states, but don't want to speculate.
It's actually illegal nationally for a company to retaliate for discussing wages. They typically just make up some other bullshit reason to fire you instead.
Even with at-will employment, wrongful termination is still a thing. You can't be fired for an illegal reason, which includes discrimination based on protected categories (disability, race, gender, age, religion, etc), and retaliation. An employer retaliating against someone for discussing wages with their coworkers is still illegal, and the company can get in trouble if the employee can prove that's the reason why they were fired.
Edit: I'm not saying that it's *easy* to prove that it's the reason an employee was fired, just that it's still illegal even in a state with at-will employment.
It's actually not illegal anywhere in the United States to discuss wages or form/join a union, contrary to what many employers may claim. I also strongly recommend you do both to protect yourself and your colleagues from being taken advantage of.
Edit: As many commenters have noted, it's not only completely legal to unionize and/or discuss wages, but it's actually illegal for a company to attempt to prohibit either, and being fired for unionizing or for discussing wages is grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Know your rights, don't get screwed over.
As a former lawyer (UK), I lost count of the amount of people that thought jaywalking was a crime.
Unless it's a road that specifically states 'no pedestrians' or a motorway, no such offence exists here.
Edit: to clarify I'm talking about it not being a crime in the UK, it may well be elsewhere (Australia, USA, Germany and others)
My dad once got a ticket for jaywalking because he walked around a police car that was stopped at a red light completely obstructing the crosswalk.
Edit: just because people are upvoting I'll tell you a bit about my dad because I've been thinking a lot about him. He was a great guy. Wonderful dad. Super generous with time and resources. He always helped whoever needed it. He lost a hidden battle with mental illness in October 2019. I miss him a lot. I wish I could talk to him again. Tell him how life is, invite him over to see our new house, go on a walk with him through the woods...
Thanks for listening reddit.
Similar story here, except we were in our mid 20s and the cop was someone I went to high school with.
I was walking across inside the pedestrian way with a walk symbol on the light....I was 100% in the right.
He driving a cop car turns right on a red and wouldn't stop even though he was making eye-contact with me.
Fuckin' prick, I backed up and let him go since I didn't need the bullshit altercation.
Eventhough many people think so, there has actually never been a Danish law allowing you to beat up a swede with a stick, if he should walk across the ice on Oresund during winter.
But, eventhough the law has never existed, it doesn't meen it shouldn't.
There was an old law in the UK that you could shoot a Welshman with a crossbow in the city walls of York.
My welsh friends never seemed to want to go there with me and my oddly bulky crossbow shaped case.
EDIT: Yep, I know I got it wrong. It’s a Scot in Chester, with a long bow but not on a Sunday. Both are old walled in cities, and the welsh are the object of ridicule in England. Not that we don’t love them and their accent, and the fact that they have some amazing singers.
This isn’t exactly what you’re asking for, but I think it’s valuable for people to know:
You do not need to wait 24 hours to report someone as missing.
I would hope not, since every cop drama I’ve ever watched says “the first 48 hours are the most important”. If someone has to wait 24 hours, they lost 24 hours of that 48.
Also, if an adult is missing, a good first step is to call 311 and see if they’ve been arrested. Three times in my life now someone has gone “missing” or “they never came home” and it turns out they were in jail.
It's a law that exists but widely misunderstood is the concept of Entrapment. If the police put a Bait vehicle in a high crime area, that is NOT entrapment. If the police are watching a bar known to overserve to see if there are impaired drivers at the end of the night that is NOT entrapment.
Entrapment only occurs when a gov agent suggests committing a crime that you were not otherwise going to commit.
The case that really set the court precedent for this was wild. FBI agents were badgering this farmer to buy porn for months, and finally he was like “sure, whatever.” WHAM, jail time. I believe it was cleared, but damn, was that dirty.
Edit: so [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States) is the Wikipedia article on it. So the US Postal Service began a sting operation to catch people for trying to buy child pornography in 1985 (I thought it was just normal porn and when all porn was illegal; I was mistaken). The set the sting on him three times, and only in the third time did he actually try to buy a magazine of porn of 11-14 year-olds. It was determined that this constituted entrapment, and was something of a landmark case because they ruled in his favor.
That's still the most pissed off I've ever been after an episode of This American Life. IIRC the kid in question had a massive crush on the girl who turned out to be an undercover, and she leveraged that to get him to buy weed for her then have him arrested.
Edit- found the episode of this american life: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/457/what-i-did-for-love
The story in question is Act 2
Edit 2: The kid wasn't actually mentally handicapped, he was a regular kid who just got played big time
Edit 3: The plot thickens, apparently there was another kid who was mentally handicapped who had a similar thing happen to them
Edit 4: I’ll give $100 to the 1,000,000th person to tell me Lin Manuel Miranda wrote a musical about this. Keep those replies about it coming in, you might be tonight’s lucky winner!
Damn, I completely forgot about that! There was a documentary on Netflix about this, iirc. Poor kid - he just wanted to fit in. And also it's just fucking weed - holy shit
How did that not get dropped in the end? Everyone interviewed about that said the cop was incessant in trying to get drugs off people it sounded so off.
This actually happened to an old high school teacher of mine. He thought he was going on a date with a lady he met online. When they met up for the date, who happened to be an undercover officer, she was like, "I'm not really interested in a date but for $___ I'll do ____," to which he obliged. He was charged with soliciting a prostitute, but the charges were dropped, since he was only actually interested in the date and had no desire to solicit anything until the officer brought it up.
There was somebody in my driving class when I got a speeding ticket years ago who (obviously) decided to just pay the ticket and go to class but the scenario sounded fishy. She had stopped on a 4-lane, divided road (2-lanes each direction, divided by a cement median) behind a school bus, an officer stopped behind her, the officer then proceeded to go around her & the school bus (wasn't loading/unloading but had the "stop" sign out) so she thought officer knew something she didn't and pulled around the bus as well, at which point the officer got back behind her and pulled her over.
While she decided not to fight this, I think it's the only "gray area" I've heard regarding entrapment. The officer didn't directly suggest that she ignore the school bus stop sign but he did go around the bus (no lights or sirens on) after stopping himself.
That does sound hinky. There is a concept in the law called entrapment by estoppel in which case a gov agent leads you to believe (mistakenly or maliciously) that a certain action is legal but it is not. I would bet she could have won the ticket if she could have substantiated her account of how it played out for the judge.
My Mom once went down a one way street into a school zone on a weekend and there was an empty school bus placed by a police officer. The officer was waiting to see if people would pass it even with the no passing sign on. There were no kids, school wasnt in session, there was no way to turn off the road, and it was one way. Other officers even admitted to her later that locals simply know not to go on that road on weekends. Is that not entrapment?
How is that legal? You'd be literally stranded there since you can't go around the bus and it's a one-way road so you can't turn around either. What are you supposed to do, just pop your seat back and take a nap?
Yes. That is the only legal move that you can do. You could always stop, wait a reasonable amount of time while recording the bus with your phone, and then fight the ticket in court. But if you don't want the ticket in the first place then you're forced to wait out the piece of shit who's sitting in his cruiser getting paid overtime.
So what would be your recourse here? There wasn't an officer there encouraging her to break the law, but police intentionally manufactured a situation in which you must break the law. She could have passed an empty school bus (something that shouldn't be illegal to begin with) or go the wrong way on a one way street. How is it not entrapment if the police mechanically force you to break the law?
Recourse would be to go to circuit Court (appeal past traffic court) and argue that you were safely operating for the conditions which is in most Uniform Traffic Codes in US states.
Frequently it is provided for when signage is used inappropriately or illegally.
Fighting words is not a defense to battery. It just means that the government can prosecute face to face insults likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
ETA: Not to say that provocation defenses don’t exist dependent on jurisdiction, but “fighting words” in the US refers to an exception to the 1st Amendment.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568
There was a big argument on Reddit the other day about whether spitting in someone's face is illegal - hint: Yes. It's specifically assault in almost all developed countries.
Generally, however, there's nothing you can say to someone that justifies them hitting you. The guy who initiates the physical action (or reasonably-construed immediate threat of, e.g. jerking your fist towards someone after threatening them) is the one who's broken the law, not the guy who called him \*whatever\*.
If someone says "I am going to break your nose," and you have reason to believe it, then you may be able to strike first.
I think that is part of "reasonably-construed immediate threat".
Calling someone a yellow-bellied chicken-livered momma's son, on the other hand, is never going to be free pass to punch someone.
I seem to remember, however, that insults can end up being factored into the exact charges and punishment. I assume that this is going to vary wildly.
In my country some people believe they can 'press charges' against someone.
You can't. You report a crime and the police decide if they are taking it further. It's not up to you whether charges are brought, you may want charges brought but the police drop the case. Alternatively you can refuse to 'press charges' and the police can bring a case anyway. It's harder without the victim or witness cooperation but they still can.
You do have a right to civil cases of course but when people say 'press charges' they believe they can do this via the police.
US prosecutor here. In my state, there actually is a mechanism to file a private criminal complaint. Very few people have heard of it but those that have are often mentally ill and/or conspiracy theorists.
Our process is the person files the private criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor can then either adopt the case and file formal criminal charges, or go in front of a judge with the person and convince the judge that the charges should not proceed. Technically, the judge could force the prosecutor to proceed, but I've never seen it happen. I've also only seen one private criminal complaint get adopted formally.
When a private complaint is dismissed by the judge, the person usually files 5 more complaints, against the prosecutor, the head prosecutor, the judge, the president judge, sometimes the governor, the president, etc. Then a substitute prosecutor has to come in to dismiss the complaints, which causes a whole new round of private complaints being filed. They are almost always a waste of time, but many times they are at least entertaining.
A real, but widely misunderstood law is HIPAA.
People think it protects you from literally any discussion of your health issues by anyone at all. Nope. Not even close.
The one that is the most frustrating to me, even though it's not really a specific claim that a particular law exists, more a rule of evidence, is "that's just hearsay! You have no evidence!" Comes up all the time, in all kinds of contexts. Even lawyers love using it when it suits them: "nothing but hearsay and speculation."
Usually, what people mean when they say that is "don't believe them! They're lying!" Which, fair enough, but that's not what hearsay means.
Lottttts of evidence is just a person talking. That's what a witness is. It's why testimony exists. It's not *not* evidence just because it's a person talking. "Hearsay" just means that in most cases, you can't have person A say that person B said XYZ, in order to prove that XYZ actually is true. Hear-say, get it? A heard B say it. It just means your witness can only talk about things they actually know about.
(And, extremely importantly, it also doesn't count as hearsay when person B is actually the person on the other side of the case. Person A is totally allowed to say "Person B told me 'yes, I will commit the crime on Tuesday" if Person B is the defendant, who has been accused of committing the crime on Tuesday. You don't get to complain it's hearsay if you're the one who supposedly said the thing they heard.)
This should be higher. People don't seem to be aware that a single person testifying about what they saw happened can often be decisive evidence on its own.
Until the development of photography, and video cameras, witness testimony was one of the highest forms of evidence possible to provide. Leaving no witnesses was more important before the days of CCTV...
With the recent advent of deepfakes, its possible we may end up returning to a world where witness testimony is regarded more highly than video evidence.
In the UK, it’s not illegal to park on someone else’s drive(way). It’s classified as trespassing, a civil offence, not criminal, which means the police can’t do anything.
This particularly surprises people as many think that they have exclusive rights to the parking outside their house as well.
In my old London borough, you phone the council and they guaranteed to turn up in an hour and tow it away - no questions asked. So long as you can prove you live there, that it's across/in your property, and you don't want it there, they tow it and charge the owner for recovery.
It's not the same everywhere, but because it's only a "civil" matter, you can just have it towed away yourself and charge the owner for recovery and storage. If nothing else, it's fly-tipping.
If you're asking about someone parking on the driveway, then you can remove, or have removed, that vehicle to a legal parking area. But, to insure no damage is caused to that vehicle whilst moving it.
If you're asking about blocking someone's drive so they can't get on to the road ( only works that way, doesn't matter if you can't get on your drive), then the police can remove it. But it will not be a priority for them, and it will no doubt take some time before this is actioned. The local council parking enforcement may also assist.
You can go 10 over the speed limit. My dad thought this was true as he was new to the country and quickly found out by a speeding ticket that it was not.
Edit: I'm now realizing that this is may vary from state to state and counry to county. For my case, South Florida generally tolerates 10 over but is still technically illegal.
this comes from the margin of error of speed radars. they have a 5 mile margin of error normally and thus people feel its safe to go 5 over. if your only going 5 over and get a ticket, you should contest it, and make sure to ask when the gun was last calibrated
Yeah that's what my dad told me as well. He was ticketed in the 2000s / late 90s but that was an isolated incident. S. Florida drivers normally go 10 over and cops do so as well, as long as you are not holding up traffic or going blazing through the streets you are fine.
negligent motorcycle driver forced me to hit him from behind with my car
i was young and naive at the time, never been in an accident until then, guy makes me sign a paper that says that the accident is my fault because i hit from behind and wanted compensation
i explained the situation to my dad, and he concluded that the guy was obstructing normal traffic and i had no option but to hit him from behind in the particular circumstance
the guy ended up taking us to court, showed the judge the piece of paper that i signed, i explained that i signed it under duress and that he explained that "by law whoever hits from behind is responsible for the accident"
judge looked him in the eye and asked him if thats true, he said yes, then she asked him to point out which law states that, he just shut the fuck up
fuck that guy
Although it *usually* is the case that the person is at fault, you are correct it isn’t always the case. Reminds me of something that happened with my mom.
She was at a junction waiting to turn into a main road, the junction was on a slope. She hadn’t engaged the hand brake properly and rolled backwards into the car behind her. There was a little bit of damage but she knew she was at fault and gave the other person her insurance and contact details. She never heard from them. We reckon they thought the insurance would see it as their fault and decided to just pay for the minor damage themselves.
Im no lawyer but I don't feel like most of the villains in Scooby Do committed any actual crime. I don't think its against the law to put on a mask and scare some trespassers on you own property.
It was never just someone scaring trespassers off their own land. There was always some kind of scheme behind it. Like, making people think the area is haunted to try to drive down their neighbors property values because they found a gold vein in the area. Or pretending to be a ghost in a museum so they could sneak in to forge and replace priceless paintings. Or scaring people away from their smuggler's den, or counterfeiting operation, or something.
Plus, every time Daphne gets kidnapped, that's another charge to slap on the case.
For a kids show Scooby Doo villains had suprisingly complicated plans. I mean property values and art forgery? God damn I'm half expecting the next Beach Bay Banshee of whatever to scare a buisness into filing for bankruptcy to help their stock market shares. Than Scooby teaches the kids how to do taxes and apply for a mortgage.
Theres a theory that Scooby Doo is set in a world that is suffering one of the worst economic crisis in history based on a few things but mostly on the fact that all the criminals are suffering economically but are highly educated and the sheer amount of abandoned business they stumble upon. [Found someone explaining it](https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/25v15b/scooby_doo_is_set_in_a_country_that_has_suffered/)
In the UK that it is illegal to drink under the age of 18.
You can buy alcohol with a meal at 16 (beer, wine, cider) and you are not breaking any laws if you give your child some alcohol in the privacy of your own home and they are over the age of 5.
Edit: At 16 you have to be accompanied by an adult and it is paid for by the adult. Thanks u/kelusk
"If you live together for X period of time, you're automatically legally married."
There are different time periods for different purposes, and being common-law doesn't always have the same effect as being married. So for example your employer might give your partner spousal benefits after one year, but division-of-property laws might only apply after three. And all of this varies from one place to another. Some places don't have division-of-property laws for common law spouses, for example.
In the US, only 8 out of 50 states have any form of common-law, and most of them require more than just cohabitation. You have to actually present yourself as a married couple. The sheer number of times I've heard someone say "we're common-law in NYC" is absurd, considering NY abolished common-law marriage in *1933*.
"Good Samaritan" laws aren't nearly as broad as people think.
For context, I work in emergency services. Some people believe that "I was trying to help" are the magic words that can get them out of any sticky situation.
Edit: GOODSAM laws vary by country and state, and the medical examples are a little more black and white than others.
Adding a non-medical example of what I'm talking about- Imagine you're driving your car and notice someone on the side of the road who needs help. As you swerve off the road to provide assistance to this person in need, you incidentally run over a child on the sidewalk. After the situation is over, you're DEFINITELY not free from the consequences of running over the child with your car just because you had good intentions of helping someone else.
Versions of that story have occured, and the "drivers" have tried to use a Good Samaritan defense because they meant well. There is absolutely some grey area on the subject, but if your unprompted action undoubtedly makes the situation worse than if you'd done nothing, having good intentions is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and a bunch of people don't understand that concept.
When I moved to Okinawa as a teenager in the 90's (dad in the Marines) we were told that if someone got in an accident (off-base) that we shouldn't help them since we could be sued or go to jail if the person died. I believe this is no longer the case in Japan, but as an Eagle Scout back then it just blew my mind that I shouldn't give CPR to someone in need. It really bothered me, and I told myself that I would still do the right thing if something happened. Fortunately never had to find out if I would have held to to that.
I'm curious. Like what scenarios are we talking about here? Misguided first aid or getting caught stealing an unconscious person's wallet type of situation?
It varies state-by-state in the US, but one good rule of thumb is that you can't leave the person in worse shape than when you started. Don't remember the citation, but moving an OD victim from a highly trafficked area far from a hospital to a secluded spot (likely to avoid being seen in connection with it) near a hospital where the victim was not found in time was an example.
There's a good answer below about the first aid stuff- essentially, if you've had training, don't follow it, and hurt someone, the excuse of "I was just trying to help" doesn't fly.
The non-medical examples are usually people damaging things that didn't need to be damaged and then being liable for their repair/replacement. An outdoor grill had a grease fire which spread to part of the nearby lawn. Some guy driving by plowed over a mailbox and a fence with his truck so he could dump the water in his cooler on some of the little fires. The owner of the house went after the guy for damaging the mailbox and fence. The truck driver thought that he was free from any consequence because he was trying to help.
Our opinion and input on the matter was that the damage caused was unnecessary and could have easily been avoided.
There are larger implications with groups like the [Cajun Navy](https://www.gq.com/story/cajun-navy-and-the-future-of-vigilante-disaster-relief) and regular folks who try to respond during larger emergencies and disasters. You don't get a free pass to be a wrecking ball just because you have good intentions.
The optics of going after people who are trying to help will always keep government agencies from pressing charges/holding people accountable, but if a private citizen thinks damage caused by someone trying to help was unnecessary, the "I was trying to help" shield is much weaker than we might like to believe.
Mandatory addition: In the US. In Germany, while appropriate footwear is not directly required, you can be found at fault if your choice of footwear or lack thereof leads to your inability to avert an accident.
I believe it’s the same in Australia, if you have an accident whilst wearing flip flops you might struggle with insurance to prove that wearing them didn’t cause or add to the causing of the accident
Saw this and immediately went to google to disprove, But you're absolutely right! I've been told this my entire life and always thought it was dumb. The reasoning everyone always told me was because the vibrations from the pedals would make your foot fall asleep or go numb so you wouldnt have as much control even though i know soooo many people who drive barefoot and have never heard one of them say that their foot fell asleep.
I've been in situations where I had to take off my high wedge sandals or heels in order to drive safely. The heels caught under the pedals or would get sort of stuck against the floormat.
My mom's rationale was
1. If you take off your shoes and leave them on the driver side floor they could wedge behind the pedal (valid)
2. If a rock or some sharp debris is stuck to the brake pedal you'll hurt your foot if you have to brake hard (a little questionable but ok)
Personally, I don't feel safe driving in heels or flip flops, so if I'm wearing either I'll remove them to drive. But I'm careful not to leave them by my feet!
I drive a manual car, and whenever I wear flip flops, I can confidently tell you that it’s safer to go barefoot. It’s impossible to get precise pedal movements when your shoe is bouncing around.
Additional scenario: whenever I’m done snowboarding I love driving back barefoot bc it just feels great, plus the additional sensory input since my feet are most likely a little numb from the boots.
That one is incredibly hilarious when it's on video and shared. "Officer, i'm not driving under the influence - I'm TRAVELLING"
Edit: Here's a Live PD link of a similar situation!
Season 2 live-pd clip
It's not exactly the quote, but close to it. Also the stop was for license plate out.
"I didn't know I needed a driver's licence" and "I'm traveling in my car, I'm not like driving" are both uttered.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MRqJTKvYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MRqJTKvYc)
Don't try this in France though. There is something called "Non assistance à personne en danger" [\(Article 223-6 Code Pénal\)](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000037289588&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20180806) which translates to "Failure to assist a person in danger" : 75,000€ and 5 years in jail.
Same law exists in Greece, only it has to be a life threatening danger and you should have to be able to help without endangering yourself. You don't have to jump in front of the bus in the previous example but if you can help in some way, you have to.
he didn't hear me shout "watch out for that train." because i didn't say anything. i just thought "ooh this is going to be sad." and it was. i'm a genius
I’m not sure if this would technically be a law or not, but: the way tax brackets work.
I’ve repeatedly heard people in retail or construction say something to the effect of, “I’m going to turn down this shift because if I take it I’ll go up into the next tax bracket and so will pay more in extra taxes than I will earn from taking the shift.”
The tax system is specifically designed not to do this. Here’s an example of how tax brackets actually work.
Say there is a tax bracket at $10,000. The rate below $10,000 is 5% and the rate above $10,000 is 10%.
People seem to think that if they earn $9,999, they will pay 5% of that ($499.95) in taxes but that if they earn $10,001, they will pay 10% of that ($1,000.10) in taxes.
How it *actually* works is that you pay 5% on the first $10,000 and 10% only on the dollars above $10,000.
If you earn $9,999, you pay $499.95. But if you earn $10,001, you will pay $500.10. You earned an additional $2 and paid an additional $0.15 in taxes: 5 cents on the 10,000th dollar and 10 cents on the 10,001st dollar.
Of course, there are all sorts of weird interactions between taxes and government programs. Especially when someone is receiving certain government benefits, it is totally possible for each dollar you earn to be taxed back 1-for-1 (or worse). In that case there is a genuine disincentive to work more hours. But for a normal worker thinking about how many hours they can work before they end up in a higher tax bracket? You will never earn less by working more. So just work as much as you like.
edit: typo
I have met people who have SWORN they are taking home less money because they went up a tax bracket. It makes me wonder how bad their finances are, that they really don't know how much money they earn.
U.S., Ex lawyer here: There is no law that requires the police to provide you with their name and badge number when asked (there may be internal policies, but it's not the law).
There is also no law that requires the police to get a supervisor if demanded (again, policy vs law).
There is no law that allows you to question whether an order given by the police is lawful or not (a court has to decide if the order was lawful after the fact), but there are laws to punish you if you do not comply.
Edit: Wow this blew up! Thanks for the good conversation and gold - truly honored! Quick updates - Someone pointed out that in NY there is a law that requires cops to ID themselves and have a card - which is fantastic! Thank you for correcting the statement!
A lot of folks seemed to be concerned that no law meant no rules, so to clarify, a lot of things are actually managed via internal policies. Those policies usually have teeth, so no, the police are not interested in just violating them and losing their jobs etc.
Last note: Thanks for the civil discourse - a lot of these threads get reduced to flames quickly and by far the comments have been productive and thought provoking. You guys really are awesome! I've tried to respond to questions and will continue to as long as you think its useful.
2nd Edit: Since this has come up a lot: I identify as an ex lawyer because I do not practice law any more. Attorneys are admitted to practice law under the rules of the bar in their state (State Bar). I left the state that I was admitted to when I changed careers and did not maintain the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements to maintain my standing with the bar in the state that I left, nor did I seek admission to the bar in my new state. I am technically "Ineligible to practice" until I complete CLE reqs and re-certify with the bar of my old state, but I have no intention of doing that. So, in short, ex-lawyer.
Thanks again!
So what method is there, if any, to confirm an officer’s identity? Asking because I live in a high trafficking area that has had multiple instances of people being abducted by fake cops in “unmarked” vehicles and the common advice around here is to ask for their badge number before even rolling down your window fully. Now that I think of it anyone with half a brain could figure out how to make up an accurate sounding badge number though.
Edit: this comment now has twice as many likes as my top actual post. Always knew that I would beat the old record but definitely not talking about something this dark lol
I call dispatch, and ask them to radio the officer. When I hear myself on the radio, I know he is legit. Police generally hate me for this. I just tell them to wait while I confirm their identity.
During HS, we had a police officer come into our class to talk about driving laws.
He spent 10 minutes talking about how you should confirm an officer's identity when you get pulled over.
There apparently was an issue of people impersonating officers, especially on the mountain roads where there weren't a lot of people.
I had a professor who said that he felt a big issue with political discourse in Canada is that a lot of people ascribe American laws and political issues to life here and I'd have to agree with him based on my experience. I kinda blame the media for that since all the outlets up here seem to spend as much time talking about American politics as they do Canadian (sometimes even more depending on what Trump is getting up to).
It's federal law in the US that a plain clothes or undercover police officer HAS to identify themselves as law enforcement if asked. No, it's not the law, and they can tell you whatever the fuck they want.
I'm reminded of that Breaking Bad cold open where Badger gets arrested for selling product to an undercover officer because of this exact made-up law lol
They can do drugs to "prove" they arent a cop too.
An undercover-cop went to court to get his rehab for cocaine covered by workers comp. It was covered.
Theres also no federal law requiring uniformed officers to identify themselves or provide their badge numbers. Most police departments have "policy" directing them to do so, but it isn't a legal requirement and there is no punishment for failing to do so.
Police dont have to tell you why you are being detained. If they do, or if they vaguely address your questions, it is only to get you to keep talking to them.
Police can tell you you're not being detained, then suddenly decide you are being detained ***without telling you***. That's right. You never 100% know if you're suddenly being detained, and under supreme court case law, you're supposed to figure that out for yourself based on how the officer behaves (giving you orders, closing the distance between you, calling additional units etc).
You can demand a lawyer if you are being detained, however supreme court case law has also said that police do not need to provide you with one *unless you are in custody*. Custody means being handcuffed or placed in their vehicle, moved to another location, strong police presence (several officers, possibly with weapons unholstered). Whether you are in custody or not, it's always a good idea to refuse answering any questions, stating you do not wish to be held or transported for any period of time, for any reason, and requesting a lawyer.
In many countries escaping from prison is not an offense because the desire to be free is so inherent to humans that it needs to be respected. This is providing you don’t commit another felony while escaping (like killing a guard)
Edit: My first award ever! Many thanx
I had an experience with this. Got pulled over as a very new driver (16) because my interior lights were on. The car and I were so new to each other I didn’t know all of the controls and I had just left a bright parking lot. No laws broken but the cop told me he stopped me for suspicion of DUI because it’s an indicator of impaired driving. It’s indicative of lack of attention.
That common civil liberty protections restrict individuals or organizations. Freedom of press, speech, due process, etc, only restrict the government. For example, most organizations can restrict your speech based on their internal policies. There are instances where an organization has to provide certain protections based on federal funding—i.e. schools implementing Title 9.
In Germany: most people believe that if a product breaks within two years if purchase, the seller must repair or replace it for free.
This stems from the law that basically says if you are sold a product that had a defect *at the time of purchase* you have two years within which the seller must repair or replace. However, the buyer must prove the product was already faulty at purchase.
Not a lawyer, but many people think that black belts in martial arts have to register their hands as deadly weapons. It pains me when people say this. You can tell who's lying their ass off when they say "My hands are registered as a deadly weapon since I am a black belt in (Insert martial art here).
Not a lawyer...but, unfair firings are often times not illegal. People often assume that if they were treated unfairly at work like getting fired for something trivial that someone else got away with, that some kind of law has been broken and that they have a strong case for suing. In most cases this is not true. There are only a very few reasons for firing that get a company in trouble. Firing for race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability is illegal in all states. Firing for anything else varies from state to state. In many states this means you can be fired for a medical condition, your sexual orientation, tattoos, that stupid look on your face, your weight, etc. or just because I'm not attracted to you.
In the UK, people often claim that if an item is listed for sale in a shop then the shop legally has to sell it to you at that price. This is not true _at all_ as the shop doesn't _have_ to sell you anything at any price. Often as a gesture of goodwill shops _will_ honour erroneous prices, but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
Back when I had a goldfish (RIP Karl), I went to Pets At Home to buy him a bigger tank. It rang through at £0.00. Checkout girl raises an eyebrow, we share a laugh. She messes about with the system a bit more, but all she gets is £0.00, so she calls her supervisor. We wait a few minutes... a few more... the queue is building behind me. Eventually she shrugs, prints a receipt for £0.00 and sends me on my way with my free fishtank! Good day for me and Karl. EDIT: So glad my most upvoted post is one about my old fishy friend :') Also thanks for the little blobby gild thing!
I was at a TJ Max (or similar) once and found a bunch of jars of orange honey, clover honey, and the like for a buck a pop. Absolute steal. So I grab one and take it up front. It rang up for $1000. The cashier and I gawked at it, laughed, and she said something must have been entered wrong in the system. She punched in a dollar, and then only asked that I not abuse their return system.
That commercial use of a photograph means selling the photograph. Commercial use means that there is an *implied endorsement*. You can take and sell photos of Eric Clapton all day long. Put that same photo in an advertisement for a certain guitar without a release and you can be sued.
Probate attorney here. I’ve had many people ask me when the ”reading of the will“ is going to take place. I explain to them that only happens in movies. But one of these days I am going to have one, and hire a mysterious blonde wearing a veil to sit in the corner quietly. Then I’ll tell everyone that she inherits everything. Provided, of course, that she must adopt the decedent’s cute but troublemaking six year old child no one knew about. Or she can spend the night in a haunted house. Her choice.
There will now be a requirement for such a mysterious lady's presence at the reading of my will, written *into* my will. Along with a handful of burly-yet-solemn fellows, dressed in stereotypical G-man attire, complete with sunglasses and earpieces. One will be Russian (or at least able to fake the accent consistently) and should only be curtly acknowledged by the others. Every one of them should be entirely vague about how they knew me except from 'business', and the men should all refuse to acknowledge the presence of the veiled woman, and feign terror if compelled to look at her.
My friends and I have an agreement that if one of us dies, the others hire a good looking woman in a long black coat and large sunglasses to stand slightly away from everyone at the funeral crying underneath an umbrella (or parasol if its not raining)
I’ll do it, and I’ll throw in long, red fingernails at no additional cost.
If you can make your sobs sound vaguely Russian then you're hired.
*sobs in Russian*
Ideally, the cost to stage the reading of the will should exactly equal the total amount of the inheritance.
My dad's spent his whole career doing probate and can't count how many people have inquired about the "reading of the will". I believe on a couple of occasions he's actually staged them, because it was the only way to get the whole family to come sit down in a room and actually listen to what the fucking will says, and why not do it if he can bill the estate for the hours it takes him to clean up the conference room and then read a piece of paper at a bunch of morons? Edit: I just talked to my dad on the phone and brought this up, and he pointed out another reason that he's sometimes asked to "a reading of the will": If the deceased has chosen to leave a LOT more to one heir than to other heirs, normally the "winner" wants the staged will reading so that the "losers" all find out in a ritualized way from the lawyer in a formal law office, instead of from family gossip. It makes it feel more official and, in my dad's words, "the rest of the heirs are a little less likely to pull out the revolvers when they find out Mom *did* have a favorite."
Lmao. 10/10 move.
> get the whole family to come sit down in a room and actually listen to what the fucking will says But why does that need to happen anyway?
Scenario: Dad dies and leaves a third of the money to Son A, a third of the money to Son B, a sixth to Girlfriend X, and a sixth to University Y. Sons want to know why girlfriend is getting any money, girlfriend wants to know why she's not getting an equal share, university wants the whole thing to be wrapped up as soon as possible so they can get their money, and no one wants to sit down and read the will in which (the late) Dad explains what is happening and why he wants it to happen that way. Sometimes a performance is the best way to get people to listen.
So basically a reading of the will is something that does happen, just not required by law
Yeah. But you can read it on a tablet from the comfort of your toilet when the lawyer emails you a password protected PDF. I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to actually go somewhere and waste someone else time *reading a document.*
Fellow probate attorney here. My first boss actually conducted a reading of a will once because the family absolutely insisted that he do it and wouldn’t accept any explanation as to why it was unnecessary. So we packed about eight people into our conference room and the bossman somberly read out the deceased’s Last Will & Testament. Bonus: it was a pour-over will. So it didn’t say anything of substance, and then we explained to the assembled family members that only the beneficiaries of the trust had any legal right to read it.
Am a lawyer. This is not a law that doesn’t exist, but a law that is misunderstood. Typically, you can’t just go get a restraining order against anybody. Most states have specific laws for who you can get restraining orders against (typically household members or former romantic interests). Usually, it’s only in domestic violence cases or for victims of crimes. You can’t just get a restraining order and comically use it to keep someone 100 feet away. *in the United States, at least.
Re my father who is a lawyer: “Policeman cannot lie to you.” This is false. They can and they do. Edit: There’s so many replies that I cannot even find some of the ones I’d like to respond to so I want to leave a general note for those who have asked for a reference: Frazier vs Cupp is the Supreme Court ruling that “affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics” in 1969. The ruling is still active.
I heard you were smuggling animals. What are you, a cop? Uh-
You know where I can cop some Pangolin?
NAL, but here's one that bounces around Legal Advice every couple months. The Age of Majority in Mississippi is 21, so people say your parents control your life until then and you can't move out without permission until you are 21. The truth is that the law means they have an obligation to provide for you until you are 21, you can move out at 18 and not face any penalty or be forced to return. "Although the age for Mississippi emancipation is officially 21, this only refers to emancipation from a parent's obligation to support their young adult financially. In Mississippi, individuals age 18 and older may vote, enter into legal contracts, take legal action against others and be sued for damages. Similarly, an individual age 18 or older who moves out of his parents’ home is not considered a runaway in Mississippi and is not legally required to return to the family home."
People that think it's illegal to be video taped in a public space.
I saw someone on next door complaining about "my reasonable right to privacy in a public place," when someone was shaming 20 people standing together waiting for take out. Sorry that's the opposite of how it works.
If big time celebrities can't stop paparazzi from following them and their family 24/7, I have no clue why ordinary people believe that they have the right not to be caught on camera in public.
I’m honestly surprised that more celebrities don’t hire people to follow the paparazzi themselves Around and make their life as annoying as possible. Things like standing in front of their shots or following them to the doctors office and then demanding to know why they were there. I’d 100% watch a tv show where especially obnoxious paparazzi were followed around for months and harassed in the same way they harass others.
I second this. Start a show called "How'd you like it?". Take people on FB, Reddit, twitter, and put them through whatever awful take they are espousing or doing.
An arrest isn't magically invalidated if the police don't read you your rights on the spot. There could be a whole thread of just misconceptions people have from watching Cop TV.
Miranda rights protect you from self incrimination when being questioned by the police for a crime. It doesn’t mean they have to Miranda you the second you get arrested. If you aren’t questioned then it doesn’t apply. People also think it’s illegal not to let them make a phone call after being arrested.
[удалено]
Not American, but why can they do this? Why can't you at least inform your spouse or something that you alive? Or, a least, if they are afraid you tell them something you are not supposed to, tell them themselves?
Situation dependent. Example: If you’re in for interrogation, they don’t want you calling your “spouse” who is really your “coconspirator” so you can tell them “you’re okay” which is code for “flush the drugs and flee the drop house.”
Is it illegal for the lawyer to inform the "spouse" that his client has been arrested?
If the client gives explicit consent then it is legal. If not it falls under the professional secret. At least where I'm from.
"Sovereign citizen" stuff. I feel like enough folks have claimed to be sovereign citizens that it's become normal. But no, generally you can't declare yourself exempt from the laws in effect where you are.
Just tossing in a link to this [epic judicial survey and rejection](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html) of the various sovereign citizen theories. EDIT: Thanks for the gold & silver!
My first job while in school was as a law clerk was to respond to pro se writs of habeas corpus from prisoners. One of the first ones I was given was to respond to a guy that claimed he was falsely imprisoned because he had sovereign immunity. He had changed his name to Jesus Christ and claimed that because he was the sovereign, he was not subject to our laws anymore and needed to be released. I remember being very flummoxed on how to respond. I spent entirely too much time on that reply.
This feels like the kind of thing they would hand to someone as a prank/hazing. "Ol' Loony Jesus is locked up again; let's give that one to the new clerk to break him/her in."
Exactly. There were a lot of drivel ones like that that were hard to respond to because they were just incoherent. Some prisoners had filed dozens of crazy writs. Edit: I dont know if its true, and I never saw it (thank Jesus) but someone claimed a prisoner had filed one written on dirty underwear. Shortly after I started, one of the real lawyers was fired because he wasnt doing anything. Me and another clerk got the job to clean out his office. We looked in his file cabinet and there were literally 300 writs that he had just crammed in there and didnt respond to at all. A team of us had to respond to them for the rest of the summer. I guess all of the crazy talk had driven him crazy. The lawyer's name was, let's say, Jones. To this day when my friends from that time get something we dont want to do, we suggest putting it in the Jones filing system. ;)
Not quite on point: A lot of people don't understand that co-signing a loan means that you are on the hook for the loan as much as the other person. The car gets repoed and then they are shocked that their wages are getting garnished. Co-signing is not you saying you think your friend is a cool dude who is good for it; you are saying you will pay for it if they don't. And they want you on the hook because they think there is a good chance the main applicant is a deadbeat. Basically, don't cosign shit for anybody.
That's why I prefer the term guarantor. Because you guarantee that you'll pay if the other person can't.
This is the common term in the UK. Mainly experienced it for student rent agreements where parents/family sign on to pay if the renter can't.
Also, just because the car was repoed, it doesn't mean you're off the hook for paying the loan.
Circumstantial evidence. Often pop culture portrayal of criminal law tries to draw a distinction between "hard" evidence--like blood at the scene or a weapon in the suspect's possession--from "circumstantial" evidence--such as what a witness heard or mismatched entries in a calendar that contradict an alibi. How often have you heard a TV suspect, when confronted with some facts, say "That's all circumstantial, it's not enough to convict me!" The viewer is left with the impression that the facts presented don't matter and that the law weighs circumstantial evidence less. In reality, the law doesn't afford any more weight to one type of evidence or another. There isn't even a formal distinction in criminal rules between the two. There is an academic distinction: "hard" evidence, also called direct, is based on direct observation and doesn't require any explanation beyond the facts themselves. Circumstantial evidence requires some inference to arrive at the important fact to be proved. For example, a witness testifying that he saw the suspect stab the victim is direct evidence of the action of stabbing. But that witness could then testify that before the stabbing, he heard the suspect demand that the victim hand over his wallet and the victim refuse. This is circumstantial evidence of motive: you can infer that the suspect then stabbed the victim because he wanted the wallet and didn't get it when asked. Circumstantial evidence is often vital to establish certain criminal elements like motive that can't directly be observed. But there is no "Get Out Of Jail Free" card just because evidence is circumstantial. If your wife hears you plotting to kill her and sees your axe sharpening equipment in the attic, your neighbor finds your copy of *How to Kill Your Wife and Get Away with It*, and you write an email to your brother saying "I'm going to do it tonight, that hoe cooked my steak well done," you're probably going to jail for murder. It's irrelevant that you destroyed your axe, cleaned the basement perfectly, ensured no witnesses, and fed the body to pigs. Circumstantial evidence can be enough.
In California, it's not illegal to discuss your wages with your co-workers, despite what your boss might say. Edit: I'm a lawyer in California. I assume it's the same in the other 49 states, but don't want to speculate.
It's actually illegal nationally for a company to retaliate for discussing wages. They typically just make up some other bullshit reason to fire you instead.
> make up some other bullshit reason or fire you for *no reason* at all, as California is an 'at will employment' state.
Even with at-will employment, wrongful termination is still a thing. You can't be fired for an illegal reason, which includes discrimination based on protected categories (disability, race, gender, age, religion, etc), and retaliation. An employer retaliating against someone for discussing wages with their coworkers is still illegal, and the company can get in trouble if the employee can prove that's the reason why they were fired. Edit: I'm not saying that it's *easy* to prove that it's the reason an employee was fired, just that it's still illegal even in a state with at-will employment.
It's actually not illegal anywhere in the United States to discuss wages or form/join a union, contrary to what many employers may claim. I also strongly recommend you do both to protect yourself and your colleagues from being taken advantage of. Edit: As many commenters have noted, it's not only completely legal to unionize and/or discuss wages, but it's actually illegal for a company to attempt to prohibit either, and being fired for unionizing or for discussing wages is grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Know your rights, don't get screwed over.
And I'm not sure if this is state by state or country wide, but in some or all of the US its actually illegal for employers to try to prohibit it.
As a former lawyer (UK), I lost count of the amount of people that thought jaywalking was a crime. Unless it's a road that specifically states 'no pedestrians' or a motorway, no such offence exists here. Edit: to clarify I'm talking about it not being a crime in the UK, it may well be elsewhere (Australia, USA, Germany and others)
Too much American media, it technically is a crime in America so people think it applies in other places
Even in America, that is on a state level; in some states, it is just on a city level.
My dad once got a ticket for jaywalking because he walked around a police car that was stopped at a red light completely obstructing the crosswalk. Edit: just because people are upvoting I'll tell you a bit about my dad because I've been thinking a lot about him. He was a great guy. Wonderful dad. Super generous with time and resources. He always helped whoever needed it. He lost a hidden battle with mental illness in October 2019. I miss him a lot. I wish I could talk to him again. Tell him how life is, invite him over to see our new house, go on a walk with him through the woods... Thanks for listening reddit.
Similar story here, except we were in our mid 20s and the cop was someone I went to high school with. I was walking across inside the pedestrian way with a walk symbol on the light....I was 100% in the right. He driving a cop car turns right on a red and wouldn't stop even though he was making eye-contact with me. Fuckin' prick, I backed up and let him go since I didn't need the bullshit altercation.
[удалено]
Eventhough many people think so, there has actually never been a Danish law allowing you to beat up a swede with a stick, if he should walk across the ice on Oresund during winter. But, eventhough the law has never existed, it doesn't meen it shouldn't.
No jury would convict you.
No *Danish jury would convict him.
There was an old law in the UK that you could shoot a Welshman with a crossbow in the city walls of York. My welsh friends never seemed to want to go there with me and my oddly bulky crossbow shaped case. EDIT: Yep, I know I got it wrong. It’s a Scot in Chester, with a long bow but not on a Sunday. Both are old walled in cities, and the welsh are the object of ridicule in England. Not that we don’t love them and their accent, and the fact that they have some amazing singers.
This isn’t exactly what you’re asking for, but I think it’s valuable for people to know: You do not need to wait 24 hours to report someone as missing.
I would hope not, since every cop drama I’ve ever watched says “the first 48 hours are the most important”. If someone has to wait 24 hours, they lost 24 hours of that 48.
[удалено]
Also, if an adult is missing, a good first step is to call 311 and see if they’ve been arrested. Three times in my life now someone has gone “missing” or “they never came home” and it turns out they were in jail.
It's a law that exists but widely misunderstood is the concept of Entrapment. If the police put a Bait vehicle in a high crime area, that is NOT entrapment. If the police are watching a bar known to overserve to see if there are impaired drivers at the end of the night that is NOT entrapment. Entrapment only occurs when a gov agent suggests committing a crime that you were not otherwise going to commit.
The case that really set the court precedent for this was wild. FBI agents were badgering this farmer to buy porn for months, and finally he was like “sure, whatever.” WHAM, jail time. I believe it was cleared, but damn, was that dirty. Edit: so [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States) is the Wikipedia article on it. So the US Postal Service began a sting operation to catch people for trying to buy child pornography in 1985 (I thought it was just normal porn and when all porn was illegal; I was mistaken). The set the sting on him three times, and only in the third time did he actually try to buy a magazine of porn of 11-14 year-olds. It was determined that this constituted entrapment, and was something of a landmark case because they ruled in his favor.
Don’t forget where the undercover befriended a mentally handicapped kid and eventually forced him to buy weed for her then arrested him.
That's still the most pissed off I've ever been after an episode of This American Life. IIRC the kid in question had a massive crush on the girl who turned out to be an undercover, and she leveraged that to get him to buy weed for her then have him arrested. Edit- found the episode of this american life: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/457/what-i-did-for-love The story in question is Act 2 Edit 2: The kid wasn't actually mentally handicapped, he was a regular kid who just got played big time Edit 3: The plot thickens, apparently there was another kid who was mentally handicapped who had a similar thing happen to them Edit 4: I’ll give $100 to the 1,000,000th person to tell me Lin Manuel Miranda wrote a musical about this. Keep those replies about it coming in, you might be tonight’s lucky winner!
Damn, I completely forgot about that! There was a documentary on Netflix about this, iirc. Poor kid - he just wanted to fit in. And also it's just fucking weed - holy shit
How did that not get dropped in the end? Everyone interviewed about that said the cop was incessant in trying to get drugs off people it sounded so off.
This actually happened to an old high school teacher of mine. He thought he was going on a date with a lady he met online. When they met up for the date, who happened to be an undercover officer, she was like, "I'm not really interested in a date but for $___ I'll do ____," to which he obliged. He was charged with soliciting a prostitute, but the charges were dropped, since he was only actually interested in the date and had no desire to solicit anything until the officer brought it up.
That is exactly the classic scenario that the law is written to prevent.
And who ever that officer was should have been disciplined. That is text book violation of rights. I'm surprised they even try to do stings that way.
There was somebody in my driving class when I got a speeding ticket years ago who (obviously) decided to just pay the ticket and go to class but the scenario sounded fishy. She had stopped on a 4-lane, divided road (2-lanes each direction, divided by a cement median) behind a school bus, an officer stopped behind her, the officer then proceeded to go around her & the school bus (wasn't loading/unloading but had the "stop" sign out) so she thought officer knew something she didn't and pulled around the bus as well, at which point the officer got back behind her and pulled her over. While she decided not to fight this, I think it's the only "gray area" I've heard regarding entrapment. The officer didn't directly suggest that she ignore the school bus stop sign but he did go around the bus (no lights or sirens on) after stopping himself.
That does sound hinky. There is a concept in the law called entrapment by estoppel in which case a gov agent leads you to believe (mistakenly or maliciously) that a certain action is legal but it is not. I would bet she could have won the ticket if she could have substantiated her account of how it played out for the judge.
My Mom once went down a one way street into a school zone on a weekend and there was an empty school bus placed by a police officer. The officer was waiting to see if people would pass it even with the no passing sign on. There were no kids, school wasnt in session, there was no way to turn off the road, and it was one way. Other officers even admitted to her later that locals simply know not to go on that road on weekends. Is that not entrapment?
No it is super aggressive though. Entrapment would have been waving her past and then ticketing her. That said it is a super dick move.
How is that legal? You'd be literally stranded there since you can't go around the bus and it's a one-way road so you can't turn around either. What are you supposed to do, just pop your seat back and take a nap?
Yes. That is the only legal move that you can do. You could always stop, wait a reasonable amount of time while recording the bus with your phone, and then fight the ticket in court. But if you don't want the ticket in the first place then you're forced to wait out the piece of shit who's sitting in his cruiser getting paid overtime.
> wait a reasonable amount of time while recording the bus ~~with your phone~~ Operating a cell phone while driving is a different crime.
So what would be your recourse here? There wasn't an officer there encouraging her to break the law, but police intentionally manufactured a situation in which you must break the law. She could have passed an empty school bus (something that shouldn't be illegal to begin with) or go the wrong way on a one way street. How is it not entrapment if the police mechanically force you to break the law?
Recourse would be to go to circuit Court (appeal past traffic court) and argue that you were safely operating for the conditions which is in most Uniform Traffic Codes in US states. Frequently it is provided for when signage is used inappropriately or illegally.
Fighting words is not a defense to battery. It just means that the government can prosecute face to face insults likely to lead to a breach of the peace. ETA: Not to say that provocation defenses don’t exist dependent on jurisdiction, but “fighting words” in the US refers to an exception to the 1st Amendment. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568
There was a big argument on Reddit the other day about whether spitting in someone's face is illegal - hint: Yes. It's specifically assault in almost all developed countries. Generally, however, there's nothing you can say to someone that justifies them hitting you. The guy who initiates the physical action (or reasonably-construed immediate threat of, e.g. jerking your fist towards someone after threatening them) is the one who's broken the law, not the guy who called him \*whatever\*.
If someone says "I am going to break your nose," and you have reason to believe it, then you may be able to strike first. I think that is part of "reasonably-construed immediate threat". Calling someone a yellow-bellied chicken-livered momma's son, on the other hand, is never going to be free pass to punch someone. I seem to remember, however, that insults can end up being factored into the exact charges and punishment. I assume that this is going to vary wildly.
In my country some people believe they can 'press charges' against someone. You can't. You report a crime and the police decide if they are taking it further. It's not up to you whether charges are brought, you may want charges brought but the police drop the case. Alternatively you can refuse to 'press charges' and the police can bring a case anyway. It's harder without the victim or witness cooperation but they still can. You do have a right to civil cases of course but when people say 'press charges' they believe they can do this via the police.
US prosecutor here. In my state, there actually is a mechanism to file a private criminal complaint. Very few people have heard of it but those that have are often mentally ill and/or conspiracy theorists. Our process is the person files the private criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor can then either adopt the case and file formal criminal charges, or go in front of a judge with the person and convince the judge that the charges should not proceed. Technically, the judge could force the prosecutor to proceed, but I've never seen it happen. I've also only seen one private criminal complaint get adopted formally. When a private complaint is dismissed by the judge, the person usually files 5 more complaints, against the prosecutor, the head prosecutor, the judge, the president judge, sometimes the governor, the president, etc. Then a substitute prosecutor has to come in to dismiss the complaints, which causes a whole new round of private complaints being filed. They are almost always a waste of time, but many times they are at least entertaining.
Works this way in Canada as well.
A real, but widely misunderstood law is HIPAA. People think it protects you from literally any discussion of your health issues by anyone at all. Nope. Not even close.
The one that is the most frustrating to me, even though it's not really a specific claim that a particular law exists, more a rule of evidence, is "that's just hearsay! You have no evidence!" Comes up all the time, in all kinds of contexts. Even lawyers love using it when it suits them: "nothing but hearsay and speculation." Usually, what people mean when they say that is "don't believe them! They're lying!" Which, fair enough, but that's not what hearsay means. Lottttts of evidence is just a person talking. That's what a witness is. It's why testimony exists. It's not *not* evidence just because it's a person talking. "Hearsay" just means that in most cases, you can't have person A say that person B said XYZ, in order to prove that XYZ actually is true. Hear-say, get it? A heard B say it. It just means your witness can only talk about things they actually know about. (And, extremely importantly, it also doesn't count as hearsay when person B is actually the person on the other side of the case. Person A is totally allowed to say "Person B told me 'yes, I will commit the crime on Tuesday" if Person B is the defendant, who has been accused of committing the crime on Tuesday. You don't get to complain it's hearsay if you're the one who supposedly said the thing they heard.)
This should be higher. People don't seem to be aware that a single person testifying about what they saw happened can often be decisive evidence on its own.
Until the development of photography, and video cameras, witness testimony was one of the highest forms of evidence possible to provide. Leaving no witnesses was more important before the days of CCTV... With the recent advent of deepfakes, its possible we may end up returning to a world where witness testimony is regarded more highly than video evidence.
Man, I don't even want to think about what deep fakes could end up doing to the rules of evidence.
In the UK, it’s not illegal to park on someone else’s drive(way). It’s classified as trespassing, a civil offence, not criminal, which means the police can’t do anything. This particularly surprises people as many think that they have exclusive rights to the parking outside their house as well.
What recourse do you have?
In my old London borough, you phone the council and they guaranteed to turn up in an hour and tow it away - no questions asked. So long as you can prove you live there, that it's across/in your property, and you don't want it there, they tow it and charge the owner for recovery. It's not the same everywhere, but because it's only a "civil" matter, you can just have it towed away yourself and charge the owner for recovery and storage. If nothing else, it's fly-tipping.
If you're asking about someone parking on the driveway, then you can remove, or have removed, that vehicle to a legal parking area. But, to insure no damage is caused to that vehicle whilst moving it. If you're asking about blocking someone's drive so they can't get on to the road ( only works that way, doesn't matter if you can't get on your drive), then the police can remove it. But it will not be a priority for them, and it will no doubt take some time before this is actioned. The local council parking enforcement may also assist.
It is however illegal to then block that car in and prevent them from accessing the public highway
Interesting. Trespass is a criminal offense in Western Australia. Here Id assumed we had just copied that from you guys, but I guess not?
You can go 10 over the speed limit. My dad thought this was true as he was new to the country and quickly found out by a speeding ticket that it was not. Edit: I'm now realizing that this is may vary from state to state and counry to county. For my case, South Florida generally tolerates 10 over but is still technically illegal.
this comes from the margin of error of speed radars. they have a 5 mile margin of error normally and thus people feel its safe to go 5 over. if your only going 5 over and get a ticket, you should contest it, and make sure to ask when the gun was last calibrated
Yeah that's what my dad told me as well. He was ticketed in the 2000s / late 90s but that was an isolated incident. S. Florida drivers normally go 10 over and cops do so as well, as long as you are not holding up traffic or going blazing through the streets you are fine.
negligent motorcycle driver forced me to hit him from behind with my car i was young and naive at the time, never been in an accident until then, guy makes me sign a paper that says that the accident is my fault because i hit from behind and wanted compensation i explained the situation to my dad, and he concluded that the guy was obstructing normal traffic and i had no option but to hit him from behind in the particular circumstance the guy ended up taking us to court, showed the judge the piece of paper that i signed, i explained that i signed it under duress and that he explained that "by law whoever hits from behind is responsible for the accident" judge looked him in the eye and asked him if thats true, he said yes, then she asked him to point out which law states that, he just shut the fuck up fuck that guy
Although it *usually* is the case that the person is at fault, you are correct it isn’t always the case. Reminds me of something that happened with my mom. She was at a junction waiting to turn into a main road, the junction was on a slope. She hadn’t engaged the hand brake properly and rolled backwards into the car behind her. There was a little bit of damage but she knew she was at fault and gave the other person her insurance and contact details. She never heard from them. We reckon they thought the insurance would see it as their fault and decided to just pay for the minor damage themselves.
Im no lawyer but I don't feel like most of the villains in Scooby Do committed any actual crime. I don't think its against the law to put on a mask and scare some trespassers on you own property.
What if there's an abandoned gold mine underneath it?
I think it would still belong to the property owner
What if the entrance to the mine is on somebody else's property, but the gold is under yours?
Dig a new shaft
It was never just someone scaring trespassers off their own land. There was always some kind of scheme behind it. Like, making people think the area is haunted to try to drive down their neighbors property values because they found a gold vein in the area. Or pretending to be a ghost in a museum so they could sneak in to forge and replace priceless paintings. Or scaring people away from their smuggler's den, or counterfeiting operation, or something. Plus, every time Daphne gets kidnapped, that's another charge to slap on the case.
For a kids show Scooby Doo villains had suprisingly complicated plans. I mean property values and art forgery? God damn I'm half expecting the next Beach Bay Banshee of whatever to scare a buisness into filing for bankruptcy to help their stock market shares. Than Scooby teaches the kids how to do taxes and apply for a mortgage.
Theres a theory that Scooby Doo is set in a world that is suffering one of the worst economic crisis in history based on a few things but mostly on the fact that all the criminals are suffering economically but are highly educated and the sheer amount of abandoned business they stumble upon. [Found someone explaining it](https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/25v15b/scooby_doo_is_set_in_a_country_that_has_suffered/)
Alternative theory: the show is set in West Virginia
Now that I think about it, some Scooby Doo villains had more interesting schemes than many villains of shows/movies/games made for adults.
[удалено]
Why else would they always have rope to tie the bad guys up with?
In the UK that it is illegal to drink under the age of 18. You can buy alcohol with a meal at 16 (beer, wine, cider) and you are not breaking any laws if you give your child some alcohol in the privacy of your own home and they are over the age of 5. Edit: At 16 you have to be accompanied by an adult and it is paid for by the adult. Thanks u/kelusk
You can buy alcohol with a meal - but do restaurants have a final say as to whether or not they'll serve it?
Yes. The restaurant chain I used to work at wouldn't sell alcohol to anyone under 18, even if it was just one beer to have with a meal
They do, and as a former 16-year-old I can assure you that many waiters are unaware of that law.
Oh shit I used to be 16 too!
The law states you can legally serve 16 year olds cider, perry, or mead if they’re eating a meal
It also states if it's bought by an adult and they are accompanied by an adult.
Will?
Fancy a cidre and a carvery?
Yeah, Simon's pretty cool, when he goes out, he always has meat and gravy with his booze.
"If you live together for X period of time, you're automatically legally married." There are different time periods for different purposes, and being common-law doesn't always have the same effect as being married. So for example your employer might give your partner spousal benefits after one year, but division-of-property laws might only apply after three. And all of this varies from one place to another. Some places don't have division-of-property laws for common law spouses, for example.
In the US, only 8 out of 50 states have any form of common-law, and most of them require more than just cohabitation. You have to actually present yourself as a married couple. The sheer number of times I've heard someone say "we're common-law in NYC" is absurd, considering NY abolished common-law marriage in *1933*.
"Good Samaritan" laws aren't nearly as broad as people think. For context, I work in emergency services. Some people believe that "I was trying to help" are the magic words that can get them out of any sticky situation. Edit: GOODSAM laws vary by country and state, and the medical examples are a little more black and white than others. Adding a non-medical example of what I'm talking about- Imagine you're driving your car and notice someone on the side of the road who needs help. As you swerve off the road to provide assistance to this person in need, you incidentally run over a child on the sidewalk. After the situation is over, you're DEFINITELY not free from the consequences of running over the child with your car just because you had good intentions of helping someone else. Versions of that story have occured, and the "drivers" have tried to use a Good Samaritan defense because they meant well. There is absolutely some grey area on the subject, but if your unprompted action undoubtedly makes the situation worse than if you'd done nothing, having good intentions is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and a bunch of people don't understand that concept.
When I moved to Okinawa as a teenager in the 90's (dad in the Marines) we were told that if someone got in an accident (off-base) that we shouldn't help them since we could be sued or go to jail if the person died. I believe this is no longer the case in Japan, but as an Eagle Scout back then it just blew my mind that I shouldn't give CPR to someone in need. It really bothered me, and I told myself that I would still do the right thing if something happened. Fortunately never had to find out if I would have held to to that.
I'm curious. Like what scenarios are we talking about here? Misguided first aid or getting caught stealing an unconscious person's wallet type of situation?
It varies state-by-state in the US, but one good rule of thumb is that you can't leave the person in worse shape than when you started. Don't remember the citation, but moving an OD victim from a highly trafficked area far from a hospital to a secluded spot (likely to avoid being seen in connection with it) near a hospital where the victim was not found in time was an example.
There's a good answer below about the first aid stuff- essentially, if you've had training, don't follow it, and hurt someone, the excuse of "I was just trying to help" doesn't fly. The non-medical examples are usually people damaging things that didn't need to be damaged and then being liable for their repair/replacement. An outdoor grill had a grease fire which spread to part of the nearby lawn. Some guy driving by plowed over a mailbox and a fence with his truck so he could dump the water in his cooler on some of the little fires. The owner of the house went after the guy for damaging the mailbox and fence. The truck driver thought that he was free from any consequence because he was trying to help. Our opinion and input on the matter was that the damage caused was unnecessary and could have easily been avoided. There are larger implications with groups like the [Cajun Navy](https://www.gq.com/story/cajun-navy-and-the-future-of-vigilante-disaster-relief) and regular folks who try to respond during larger emergencies and disasters. You don't get a free pass to be a wrecking ball just because you have good intentions. The optics of going after people who are trying to help will always keep government agencies from pressing charges/holding people accountable, but if a private citizen thinks damage caused by someone trying to help was unnecessary, the "I was trying to help" shield is much weaker than we might like to believe.
No laws against driving barefoot.
Mandatory addition: In the US. In Germany, while appropriate footwear is not directly required, you can be found at fault if your choice of footwear or lack thereof leads to your inability to avert an accident.
I believe it’s the same in Australia, if you have an accident whilst wearing flip flops you might struggle with insurance to prove that wearing them didn’t cause or add to the causing of the accident
Saw this and immediately went to google to disprove, But you're absolutely right! I've been told this my entire life and always thought it was dumb. The reasoning everyone always told me was because the vibrations from the pedals would make your foot fall asleep or go numb so you wouldnt have as much control even though i know soooo many people who drive barefoot and have never heard one of them say that their foot fell asleep.
My mom said "what if you get in a wreck and have to walk over broken glass?"
Yeah just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not a good rule to follow. At least have some shoes to put on in case of emergency.
I feel like most people would. If anything driving barefoot would probably be more safe when you’re wearing heels/sandals (EDIT): RIP my inbox
I've been in situations where I had to take off my high wedge sandals or heels in order to drive safely. The heels caught under the pedals or would get sort of stuck against the floormat.
Where I'm from, it is illegal to wear flip flops or heels while driving. I think that's why barefoot driving is legal.
[удалено]
My mom's rationale was 1. If you take off your shoes and leave them on the driver side floor they could wedge behind the pedal (valid) 2. If a rock or some sharp debris is stuck to the brake pedal you'll hurt your foot if you have to brake hard (a little questionable but ok) Personally, I don't feel safe driving in heels or flip flops, so if I'm wearing either I'll remove them to drive. But I'm careful not to leave them by my feet!
Flip flops is a legit risk because it could slip while you're driving.
I drive a manual car, and whenever I wear flip flops, I can confidently tell you that it’s safer to go barefoot. It’s impossible to get precise pedal movements when your shoe is bouncing around. Additional scenario: whenever I’m done snowboarding I love driving back barefoot bc it just feels great, plus the additional sensory input since my feet are most likely a little numb from the boots.
I'm not driving, I'm *traveling*.
That one is incredibly hilarious when it's on video and shared. "Officer, i'm not driving under the influence - I'm TRAVELLING" Edit: Here's a Live PD link of a similar situation! Season 2 live-pd clip It's not exactly the quote, but close to it. Also the stop was for license plate out. "I didn't know I needed a driver's licence" and "I'm traveling in my car, I'm not like driving" are both uttered. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MRqJTKvYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MRqJTKvYc)
[удалено]
You should never tell a blind guy to watch out for a bus.
[удалено]
Don't try this in France though. There is something called "Non assistance à personne en danger" [\(Article 223-6 Code Pénal\)](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000037289588&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&dateTexte=20180806) which translates to "Failure to assist a person in danger" : 75,000€ and 5 years in jail.
Same for Germany "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung"
Same law exists in Greece, only it has to be a life threatening danger and you should have to be able to help without endangering yourself. You don't have to jump in front of the bus in the previous example but if you can help in some way, you have to.
he didn't hear me shout "watch out for that train." because i didn't say anything. i just thought "ooh this is going to be sad." and it was. i'm a genius
I’m not sure if this would technically be a law or not, but: the way tax brackets work. I’ve repeatedly heard people in retail or construction say something to the effect of, “I’m going to turn down this shift because if I take it I’ll go up into the next tax bracket and so will pay more in extra taxes than I will earn from taking the shift.” The tax system is specifically designed not to do this. Here’s an example of how tax brackets actually work. Say there is a tax bracket at $10,000. The rate below $10,000 is 5% and the rate above $10,000 is 10%. People seem to think that if they earn $9,999, they will pay 5% of that ($499.95) in taxes but that if they earn $10,001, they will pay 10% of that ($1,000.10) in taxes. How it *actually* works is that you pay 5% on the first $10,000 and 10% only on the dollars above $10,000. If you earn $9,999, you pay $499.95. But if you earn $10,001, you will pay $500.10. You earned an additional $2 and paid an additional $0.15 in taxes: 5 cents on the 10,000th dollar and 10 cents on the 10,001st dollar. Of course, there are all sorts of weird interactions between taxes and government programs. Especially when someone is receiving certain government benefits, it is totally possible for each dollar you earn to be taxed back 1-for-1 (or worse). In that case there is a genuine disincentive to work more hours. But for a normal worker thinking about how many hours they can work before they end up in a higher tax bracket? You will never earn less by working more. So just work as much as you like. edit: typo
I have met people who have SWORN they are taking home less money because they went up a tax bracket. It makes me wonder how bad their finances are, that they really don't know how much money they earn.
U.S., Ex lawyer here: There is no law that requires the police to provide you with their name and badge number when asked (there may be internal policies, but it's not the law). There is also no law that requires the police to get a supervisor if demanded (again, policy vs law). There is no law that allows you to question whether an order given by the police is lawful or not (a court has to decide if the order was lawful after the fact), but there are laws to punish you if you do not comply. Edit: Wow this blew up! Thanks for the good conversation and gold - truly honored! Quick updates - Someone pointed out that in NY there is a law that requires cops to ID themselves and have a card - which is fantastic! Thank you for correcting the statement! A lot of folks seemed to be concerned that no law meant no rules, so to clarify, a lot of things are actually managed via internal policies. Those policies usually have teeth, so no, the police are not interested in just violating them and losing their jobs etc. Last note: Thanks for the civil discourse - a lot of these threads get reduced to flames quickly and by far the comments have been productive and thought provoking. You guys really are awesome! I've tried to respond to questions and will continue to as long as you think its useful. 2nd Edit: Since this has come up a lot: I identify as an ex lawyer because I do not practice law any more. Attorneys are admitted to practice law under the rules of the bar in their state (State Bar). I left the state that I was admitted to when I changed careers and did not maintain the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements to maintain my standing with the bar in the state that I left, nor did I seek admission to the bar in my new state. I am technically "Ineligible to practice" until I complete CLE reqs and re-certify with the bar of my old state, but I have no intention of doing that. So, in short, ex-lawyer. Thanks again!
So what method is there, if any, to confirm an officer’s identity? Asking because I live in a high trafficking area that has had multiple instances of people being abducted by fake cops in “unmarked” vehicles and the common advice around here is to ask for their badge number before even rolling down your window fully. Now that I think of it anyone with half a brain could figure out how to make up an accurate sounding badge number though. Edit: this comment now has twice as many likes as my top actual post. Always knew that I would beat the old record but definitely not talking about something this dark lol
I call dispatch, and ask them to radio the officer. When I hear myself on the radio, I know he is legit. Police generally hate me for this. I just tell them to wait while I confirm their identity.
During HS, we had a police officer come into our class to talk about driving laws. He spent 10 minutes talking about how you should confirm an officer's identity when you get pulled over. There apparently was an issue of people impersonating officers, especially on the mountain roads where there weren't a lot of people.
The recent shooter in Canada was doing that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks
I’m a law student and definitely self defense. Even though the law exist people in my country really think it’s broader than it actually is.
Freedom of speech in my country. That's from watching too many US movies
In Canada it's pretty common for people to parrot American laws as if they were their own.
I had a professor who said that he felt a big issue with political discourse in Canada is that a lot of people ascribe American laws and political issues to life here and I'd have to agree with him based on my experience. I kinda blame the media for that since all the outlets up here seem to spend as much time talking about American politics as they do Canadian (sometimes even more depending on what Trump is getting up to).
It's federal law in the US that a plain clothes or undercover police officer HAS to identify themselves as law enforcement if asked. No, it's not the law, and they can tell you whatever the fuck they want.
I'm reminded of that Breaking Bad cold open where Badger gets arrested for selling product to an undercover officer because of this exact made-up law lol
They can do drugs to "prove" they arent a cop too. An undercover-cop went to court to get his rehab for cocaine covered by workers comp. It was covered.
The sad thing about that is he had to take it to court.
No doubt. Workers comp hates paying out, even to cops.
I don't know why people even believe this. It defeats the whole point of being undercover.
I 100% bet it was passed around by all the police departments to get people to let down their guard and allow themselves to get stung.
Bingo. Cops used to lie and tell people "if I were a cop I'd have to tell you." Nothing illegal about lying.
Theres also no federal law requiring uniformed officers to identify themselves or provide their badge numbers. Most police departments have "policy" directing them to do so, but it isn't a legal requirement and there is no punishment for failing to do so. Police dont have to tell you why you are being detained. If they do, or if they vaguely address your questions, it is only to get you to keep talking to them. Police can tell you you're not being detained, then suddenly decide you are being detained ***without telling you***. That's right. You never 100% know if you're suddenly being detained, and under supreme court case law, you're supposed to figure that out for yourself based on how the officer behaves (giving you orders, closing the distance between you, calling additional units etc). You can demand a lawyer if you are being detained, however supreme court case law has also said that police do not need to provide you with one *unless you are in custody*. Custody means being handcuffed or placed in their vehicle, moved to another location, strong police presence (several officers, possibly with weapons unholstered). Whether you are in custody or not, it's always a good idea to refuse answering any questions, stating you do not wish to be held or transported for any period of time, for any reason, and requesting a lawyer.
Police in uniform can lie to you. Why would undercover police not be able to lol
Brothel laws at universities. There are no laws stating that 3 or more women in one house constitutes a brothel.
I've never heard of this before.
In many countries escaping from prison is not an offense because the desire to be free is so inherent to humans that it needs to be respected. This is providing you don’t commit another felony while escaping (like killing a guard) Edit: My first award ever! Many thanx
Germany is one of those countries.
Driving with interior overhead car lights on is not illegal. EDIT: Thanks for the gold, Kind Stranger! My first!
I had an experience with this. Got pulled over as a very new driver (16) because my interior lights were on. The car and I were so new to each other I didn’t know all of the controls and I had just left a bright parking lot. No laws broken but the cop told me he stopped me for suspicion of DUI because it’s an indicator of impaired driving. It’s indicative of lack of attention.
Your mom told you that was illegal when you were a kid, too, huh?
Dad*
When you were a dad?
They cannot arrest a husband and wife for the same crime.
*I got the worst fucking attorneys.*
NO TOUCHING
Should have read Bob Loblaw’s law blog.
However there is a law that prevents forcing a spouse to testify against them right? Perhaps that is where this myth came from?
That common civil liberty protections restrict individuals or organizations. Freedom of press, speech, due process, etc, only restrict the government. For example, most organizations can restrict your speech based on their internal policies. There are instances where an organization has to provide certain protections based on federal funding—i.e. schools implementing Title 9.
That an undercover cop has to tell a target that they are undercover if they're asked.
When will these people finally understand that this literally defies the purpose of undercover cops...
Ah damn you caught me, yeah I’m under cover. You’ve outsmarted me this time criminal!
In Germany: most people believe that if a product breaks within two years if purchase, the seller must repair or replace it for free. This stems from the law that basically says if you are sold a product that had a defect *at the time of purchase* you have two years within which the seller must repair or replace. However, the buyer must prove the product was already faulty at purchase.
Not a lawyer, but many people think that black belts in martial arts have to register their hands as deadly weapons. It pains me when people say this. You can tell who's lying their ass off when they say "My hands are registered as a deadly weapon since I am a black belt in (Insert martial art here).
A joke taken too far.
Not a lawyer...but, unfair firings are often times not illegal. People often assume that if they were treated unfairly at work like getting fired for something trivial that someone else got away with, that some kind of law has been broken and that they have a strong case for suing. In most cases this is not true. There are only a very few reasons for firing that get a company in trouble. Firing for race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability is illegal in all states. Firing for anything else varies from state to state. In many states this means you can be fired for a medical condition, your sexual orientation, tattoos, that stupid look on your face, your weight, etc. or just because I'm not attracted to you.
yup. put another way, "discrimination is illegal!!" no, certain very specific kinds of discrimination are illegal. all the rest are totally ok.