Ticket for following too closely?
I got into a minor car accident yesterday - rear ended someone. The other car has minor damage, mine has lots more. We were at a redlight, and I was trying to switch lanes. I saw the car in front of me start moving, and assumed she wouldn't stop. I kept moving to the other lane and ended up hitting her corner with the middle of my bumper. I got a ticket for following too closely. Question is - I was not following per se, we were stopped at the light. Does the ticket still apply? I am paying the repairs cost, and paying a ticket on top of it just doesn't seem reasonable, since we were not in a moving traffic. Questions: 1. What is the likelyhood of me being able to get out of the ticket, if I went to court? (I am 23, and have a speeding ticket and a seatbelt ticket within the past year, and nothing before that). 2. Will I incur any additional costs should I go to court (court fees, etc) if found guilty? 3. How should I handle it if I go to court (plead guilty or not?)
Can you shoot somone if they are beating you up, and not get charged with murder?
Well, if you have the intent to use the gun before the guy even starts to attack you, then it is intent, and illegal. If you are talking like completely random guy comes out of nowhere and starts beating you up, like a mugging, then you can shoot him, and have it be considered self-defense. If you are trying to get back at someone by provoking him and having him attack you, then shoot him, that is illegal.
Is it legal to take screenshots of a chat conversation without the other person's explicit consent?
I will assume that the parties have not entered into an agreement to maintain the chat in confidence.I believe that a chat is like email or a Facebook post (rather than a telephone conversation, for which there are laws that restrict recording) - i.e., that there is no expectation of privacy.I blogged about this issue several months ago. Quoting Telling Facebook Friends Means Telling the World:This post explains something that we all should know intuitively. If you disclose information to your Facebook friends, you potentially have disclosed it to the entire world.Matthew Richard Palmieri was a contractor for the United States. He lost his industrial security clearance after the government investigated certain of his activities.Palmieri brought suit (without a lawyer) against various government agencies and officials in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit identified 30 ways in which the defendants allegedly violated his rights.Alleged Fourth Amendment ViolationFor the purposes of this post, we will focus on Palmieri’s allegation that his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure was violated because the government accessed his Facebook account.In its opinion (Palmieri v. United States), the court noted the following facts.The government did not hack his Facebook account.The government did not subpoena information from Facebook.Instead, the government obtained information that was voluntarily disclosed by one of Palmieri’s Facebook friends.Telling Facebook Friends = No Expectation of PrivacyThe court then provided the following analysis.Once Palmieri disclosed information to his Facebook friends, they were free to use it as they wished.Accordingly he had no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning that information.Thus he cannot claim a Fourth Amendment violation.The court noted that, similarly, anyone who sends an email (or write a letter) loses any expectation of privacy once the email (or letter) is delivered.
All biased put aside.Why wasn't Zimmerman charged with Manslaughter?
"it is not illegal to follow a person" How many times have you heard this script?? It is a mindless argument, which blatantly ignores reality, or that Martin had any reason to fear for his own safety or life. also, consider the following... The prosecution asked the judge to instruct the jury that it could consider who was the first aggressor in the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. If the judge had agreed to give that instruction, the jury might have concluded that, by following Martin, Zimmerman provoked a physical response from Martin. The defense objected to the instruction, and the judge decided not to give the first aggressor instruction. The jury was instructed to consider only whether Zimmerman reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself - when he later tussled with Martin on the ground. The jury was also told Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, that he could stand his ground, and meet force with force- including deadly force - if he was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a place he had a right to be. Finally, the judge instructed the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty. The instructions prevented the jury from considering whether Zimmerman was the first aggressor when he got out of his truck and began following Martin. When Zimmerman told the 911 operator, "****, he's running," the operator asked, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman said that he was. "OK, we don't need you to do that," the operator told Zimmerman. But Zimmerman followed Martin nevertheless. Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin told her on the cellphone he was being followed by a "creepy *** cracker." The jury was only given partial instructions on self-defense - those parts that helped Zimmerman. They were prevented from considering whether Zimmerman might have been the first aggressor, which would have negated his claim of self-defense. and people around here wonder, WHY DON'T PEOPLE JUST ACCEPT THE VERDICT AND MOVE ON??
What are the laws about store employees catching shoplifters?
The laws in every state are different. You should pose this question to a lawyer in your area. Generally, a store owner has a right to protect his, her or it's merchandise, including taking reasonable steps to apprehend shoplifters. That means you could take reasonable steps to stop the person and detain them until authorities arrive. There are, however, many reasons to avoid taking such measures, including the policies and procedures that you employer has in place. While they may appreciate you stopping someone from stealing beer, you may get fired for violating company policy, especially if the person, or you gets hurt and a lawsuit may follow. You would be well advised to find out what the policies are with respect to stopping shoplifters and follow those guidelines, even if that means that you can do no more than what you are already doing. Most grocery chains have inventory control specialists; unless that is your job, you should leave the fighting to them.