Is it illegal to take a picture of a person's license plate and then post it online?
No, as long as you legally took the picture of them in public without obstructing their routine, are not stalking or following them, and you are not posting anything of a personal or private matter, and the postings are not lies, racial, slanderous, or defamatory.I have routinely taken pictures of vehicles improperly parked and posted them online, as well as reported then to the police, parking authority, or bylaw enforcement. There's nothing illegal about that; it just shows how carelessly ignorant that driver was, especially when they park where it's clearly posted that it's not permitted, like a disabled spot, fire route, fire hydrant, intersection corner, front lawn, sidewalk, or backwards on a one way street, etc.Incidentally, this is exactly how they caught a bank robber in the Scarborough area of Toronto last summer. There were a series of bank robberies by a person wearing a full burka. The getaway vehicle was illegally stopped, and running by the banks front doors at each incident. During one robbery a pedestrian thought it was strange and took a picture of the running vehicle with the driver inside, then called the police. About 3 hours later, they apprehended the driver. About 1 hour later they apprehended the bank robber in the Ajax/Oshawa area, still carrying the same gun, and then found a teenage boy underneath the female family members burka.Hence the burka ban in Quebec, and the illegal use of any and all face coverings while on public, used to disguise the identity of a criminal.
If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?
I’m not sure if I really believe it, but since no one else here is making the case, I’ll name my home state.California.California is bordered by three states: Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona. Oregon and Nevada would have to be out of their minds to attack CA directly simply due to overwhelming numbers (as well as geographic barriers). Oregon troops would have to travel hundreds of miles just to reach Sacramento, and the Sierra Nevada gives a perfect defensive barrier against Nevada. Meanwhile, the border between Arizona and California is largely desert, and while Arizonans might be able to mount a significant first offensive, they’d get beaten back pretty quickly.While the other western states scramble to get organized, California could send troops as far as Canada and the Great Plains before it encountered an army large enough to stop it. This is ignoring military bases and military hardware (both of which CA has in abundance) and assuming that territorial gains are the goal of the war. If the goal is simply self-sufficiency, California could easily beat back attacks from other states given its strong natural borders, all while running a perfectly healthy economy off of agriculture and tech. It could also form a potential alliance with Mexico— the only other contestant for that not-insignificant prize would be Texas.In time, other states (especially Nevada) would be forced to give up resistance to California simply due to a need for resources. We practically upended the entire country’s food supply due to a measly drought— what will happen when we cut off those food supplies completely? Then there’s the fact that tax dollars levied from states with larger economies (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia) end up going to expenses in smaller states, making them even more vulnerable economically. While Texas would certainly be able to push for a military victory, California would win the economic war.
If a 18+ year old girl runs away from her house and then her parents file a complaint to the police, is there any such law that says that she is violating the Constitution? Is she breaching any law? Can her parents file a case and get her back?
Unless the girl has a mental deficiency that makes her unable to care for herself, her parents have no legal control over her. Once you turn 18, throughout the United States, you are legally an adult, with the rights and responsibilities thereof. In fact "running away" doesn't really apply here. An 18-year-old has every right to leave and live wherever they want, no matter what their parents say. The twist is that, when you're 18, your parents have no legal obligation to support you. If they want to kick you out of the house on your 18th birthday, there's no law to stop them. The point is, living at home after you turn 18 is a question of the relationship between you and your parents, the law doesn't generally get involved. If you leave, the police won't force you to go back, but you may affect your relationship with your parents. If you leave, find that supporting yourself is really hard, and want to move back in with your parents, they don't have to let you come back. Making your own choices also means that you have to take responsibility for them.
Do fathers have the same parental rights as mothers?
The idea that mothers get custody over fathers is really based on the model that 90% of split families (parents don't live together because of divorce or unmarried parents living apart) are households with mothers having primary custody of the children. But that 90% are cases where custody was undisputed. When parents break up, the father usually doesn't want to be saddled with the kids full-time. They may want to have the kids with them some of the time, but it's rare when they want primary custody.In the cases where custody is disputed by mother and father, however, fathers win full custody about 70% of the time. So it isn't true that fathers are less likely to gain custody of children. It's only true that about 90% of the time, mothers end up with the kids because custody is undisputed, or the fathers aren't even around. When custody is disputed, though, fathers get it more than two-thirds of the time.
Is it against the law to flip off a police officer?
Aargh. I actually did this, recently. Much to my embarrassment. I was driving on the expressway for a four hour drive, with my cruise control set to five mph over the limit and listening to NPR. I’d been happily pulling over to the right for any drivers that wanted to pass, but this time, when I glanced in my rear-view mirror, a car had barreled up behind me and was so incredibly close that it would have rear-ended me if I’d even tapped my brakes. I was really frightened, and as soon as I could I pulled to the right. I gave a pretty laid-back three fingered salute as he was passing me. The unmarked car immediately turned on the sirens and pulled me over. The officer was pissed but under control. I apologized, saying I didn’t know he was a police officer and thought I was being tail-gated by an extremely aggressive driver causing a dangerous situation (which I was!). He let me go with a warning, but I’ve always wondered how he would have handled it if I’d been more confrontational and not a white woman in my 50’s driving an SUV. In general, I have a lot of respect for police officers and it was obviously stupid to flip off an aggressive driver. But in this case, the apologies should have gone both ways!