What are non-legal measures?
Non-legal measures are better known as non-judiciary measures. They are avenues of remedy for a given situation. Unions are a non-legal measure to force employers to be more equitable with their workers. You cite the media, but that only works if your complaint is compatible with the publisher's editorial slant and that preferred by the advertisers, and then it has to be 'newsworthy.' An example might be a town hall meeting or arbitration or some other form of alternative dispute resolution.
Eating while driving - is it still legal or not?
California - watch out the rest of the nation, what goes in California goes to the nation... I heard on the radio the other day while listening to a talk show, a guest called in and said he stopped and got a hamburger at a drive through. He gets his food and leaves. He drives, is eating his food as he is driving like he and the rest of us have always done, and sure enough he gets pulled over and is given a ticket for distracted driving using the hands free driving law as the basis for the citation. The hands free law came out in July of 2008 in California in response to cell phone users talking on their phones and not paying attention to their surroundings. Nothing more than cell phones. I have never heard of eating while driving is grounds for a hands free violation. If this guy is eating a hamburger while driving, so what? If he slobbers and gets ketchup on his t-shirt, that's his business. The main point is where does this stop? If I am eating sunflower seeds and drinking an energy drink while driving from Los Angeles to Reno to stay awake, am I going to get a ticket now also? What if I stop and decide to grab a burger and fries and a soda, and munch them while I'm driving up I-5, is Mr. Highway Patrol going to give me a ticket for distracted non-hands free driving? Sunflower seeds, potato chips, drinking a soda while driving are now illegal in California? What about smoking a cigarette or talking on your CB radio? Changing the radio station? Looking at your GPS? What's next??? What does the community know about eating and driving being a traffic violation?
What are 4 examples of breaking a civil and criminal law?
Criminal law: contravening rules of statutes that are punishable by the state - e.g. homicide, assault, rape, theft. Civil law: deals with disputes b/w individual parties, public entities and companies, either resulting in court orders (e.g. injunctions) or damages n being awarded to victims - e.g. battery, defamation, negligence, tresspass to chattels etc. Example: If a person assaults you, this is in an indictable offense resulting in violation of criminal law, where that person is punished by the state. It does not, however, result in damages being awarded monetarily to the victim. Hence, that party sues the wrongdoer via the civil law system for trespass to person in the form assault, battery etc. to receive that compensation as a remedy e.g. pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, etc.
What is the big deal about underage drinking?
Because once people are 21 they no longer care about people of younger ages, because it just doesn't apply to them. I remember being 14 and thinking I could drive, and that they should lower the age, and the truth I probably could have. Of course when I turned 16 I felt like I had earned it and that younger people should have to wait too. They also remember all those "bad experiences" they had when they were "younger" and "less mature" that are reasons for keeping it at 21. The people who actually waited until 21 honestly believe that younger people lack the maturity and experience to drink, and those people are the biggest joke of all. There shouldn't be a "legal age" for alcohol, other than the age where your body stops developing (which is basically 16-18). Either your parents bring you up to drink safely at a younger age, or you wait until college to have your equally inexperienced friends make you end up in the hospital. I'm 18, I maintain an A average in college (and did in high school too), and I *oh no* drink on weekends, and sometimes even during the week. Am I going to drive? No, I'm not stupid, I know what being drunk does to me and I know that I can't handle moving at 30 miles per hour, much less 5. Am I going to drink myself silly and get alcohol poisoning? No, because I was supervised, I know what drinking too much does, and I know when to stop. Take any 21 year old out there who has never drank before and sit them next to me. Not only will they be very drunk after 6 shots, where as I would still be walking straight after 10, they will also be acting way more ridiculous and even possibly getting sick. Being older has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is all experience. You are either taught it or you learn it, it doesn't matter what age. Oh wait heres another argument! Because our brains don't fully develop until we are around 21 years old, lets just not start school until we are that old too. By then we will be more prepared to learn. Pfft.
Could a minor, black teenager get away from drunk driving accident that killed several people with the excuse of being poor that it prevents him from knowing the consequences of his action?
To a near certainty, he could not. But it should be noted that, in the case you reference, the man in question didn't necessarily "get away" on that defense. Yes, his witness made that argument, but the judge didn't reference it anywhere in her ruling, and made no indication that it influenced her. The fact was, the young man was found guilty, but was given a shockingly light sentence. Officially, this was because the judge felt that he'd be more likely to rehabilitate with counselling and probation than in prison. That may even be true, but it's obvious to one and all that, if this kid weren't rich, the judge wouldn't care so much about what was best for him. While "affluenza" makes a good headline, the real story here is that judges, in this case as in so many others, treat rich defendents completely differently from poor defendents. Rich people have better legal defense, and the resources to pay for private rehabilitation. Moreover, I'm convinced that judges tend to relate to wealthy defendents more. Outside of the possibility of bribery (which has to be a possibility for such an insanely light response to such a horrible tragedy), the only way I can explain this ruling is that the judge looked at this young man and saw someone who could easily be her son, or nephew or neighbor. A young kid who made a terrible mistake, but should still be allowed a chance at a reasonable life. Now, if the defendent were poor and black, would she see him the same way? Or would she see him as a dangerous, reckless killer who needs to be locked up for the public good? That's impossible to say in this case, but statistically, that's exactly how most judges would respond.
If you get pulled over and have been drinking and get out of your car and chug liquor can it be proven that you were drinking before you were driving?
Yes, this is a well known ploy, especially among habitual drunk drivers, for avoiding DUI charges or convictions. Our own police, with their experience, are experts at using this to get out of DUI convictions. There was one case where an RCMP, iirc, hit a motorcycle near his (the RCMP’s) home, went home after the accident before police showed up, and then claimed he'd had a few drinks to steady his nerves after the accident, when he had come back to the accident scene and been breathalyzed.However, the police doing DUI checks are wise to this, and will attempt to control you physically immediately on exiting the car, including a pat-down for alcohol, to avoid just this sort of thing happening.Edit:. I should mention that this is only to get out of the presumption of intoxication due to being over the legal limit when tested, or refusing the breathalyzer which carries the same penalty (here in Canada). It raises reasonable doubt about any blood alcohol test that is done, improving the chances of a favorable outcome if charged.
My ex husband drinks and then drives with my children in the car?
There are no laws about drinking and driving with children in the car unless the driver is legally impaired -so you can't get the police involved. If (when) someone like you comes into my office, the first thing I have them do is to call child protective services if the children are under the age of 12. The next thing I would do (or what I would for older children) would be to file an emergency temporary request for a suspension of visitation. My jurisdiction also requires mandatory mediation for a parenting plan modification - but when there is an emergency situation that involves the safety of the children, parents can bypass mediation. But even if the judge or commissioner still made my client go to mediation (something that does occassionally happen but wouldn't if the parent's last DUI arrest was in the last 18 months to two years), I would still get an order that he be required to submit to an alcohol assessment and I could DEFINITELY get an order that he was not permitted to have the children if he had consumed ANY alcohol. You have to push to get an order that prohibits him from consuming any alcohol when the children are in his custody. And based on what you are describing, you should be able to get temporary orders and you will be able to get a judge to order him to refrain from consuming any alcohol before he drives with the children in the vehicle. (As far as whether a judge will order him to completely abstain from drinking when he has the children would depend on your specific facts and circumstances.) But if you get an order that prohibits him from drinking and driving with the children it still won't violate criminal law. It will violate your parenting plan/custody order - which would only allow you to go to family court with a contempt motion and/or to request an emergency order to suspend visitation.