Legal question, is this illegal loitering?
Loitering is defined as "the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time." The problem is that it's a vague crime, and its enforcement is really up to the discretion of the police who show up on the scene. The general idea seems to be that if you're not at your own home, and you're just standing around, you're probably up to no good. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. Cops have used loitering laws to try to eliminate various problems such as prostitution, panhandling, gangs, burglars scouting a neighborhood for potential houses to hit, etc. Often, cops suspect that someone is engaged in that kind of behavior, but they can't prove it. The loitering laws are kind of a catch-all that let the police make someone they don't like go away, without having to actually arrest them. All they have to do is threaten to bust them for loitering, and virtually everyone will move on. Courts will tend to take the cop's word for it. So, it depends upon which cop shows up, when that cranky neighbor calls. Some might be more understanding than others. But in general, if you're out of your own neighborhood, they're likely to side with the person who owns the property over someone who has come into the neighborhood, for the simple fact that the resident can't leave (he or she lives there), but you can. The cop is going to want to find the simplest way of solving the conflict, so he's likely to suggest that you just move on...
What is the legal definition of "mutual consent"?
It depends on where you live but generally it means two parties of sound mind and comprehension, agree in tandem to a contract that can be verbal or written. So mutual consent can relate to anything with such a general definition.However to have a "contract" or agreement between two parties that engages the construct of mutual consent, both parties have to be of a minimum age of majority and have a mental level of understanding of what their actual agreement pertains and the consequences.So a 12-year old can not mutually consent to a contract from buying a bike for $20 to where they live to having sexual relations.An individual who is 35-years old and has mental challenges also cannot mutually consent to say signing a loan between two parties for example as well.
Is it loitering if you buy something at that establishment then sit around with a couple of people for 1 hour?
Whether or not you buy something is irrelevant to the question of loitering. I could browse through the shop for 2 hours and not be guilty of loitering even if I don't end up making a purchase. Loitering is the act of being some place without any legitimate reason or purpose for being there. The answer to your question, therefore, depends upon the nature of the people with whom you were sitting and the nature of the establishment. Was this a bar where you bought a drink and then stayed to socialize with other patrons, or perhaps you were sitting around with a couple of store employees discussing other purchases? If so, you were not loitering. However, if you were sipping on your Slurpee and listening to music out in the parking lot with a couple of your buddies after leaving the 7-11, then you were loitering.
Can fighter jets turn one engine off in the air to increase loiter time?
No, it will not increase loiter time for a couple of reasons. Loiter time is a function of fuel onboard and fuel flow.Firstly, the remaining engine will require its thrust to be increased to maintain airspeed, resulting in more fuel flow. Also the asymmetric thrust will increase yaw that must be countered by rudder which will increase drag, requiring more fuel flow to compensate for the increased drag.While many propeller driven aircraft can “feather”* their props with the engine shut down, a jet engine cannot feather its compressor blades. Therefore there is very much an increase of drag on the dead engine as the non-feathering fan blades act like a mini-speed brake and thus requires more fuel flow for the operating engine.Feathering - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
In the US, how long does someone have to remain in one place before it's considered loitering?
‘Loitering’ is defined by city ordinances, therefore the time involved depends on the city and the situation. It is the kind of charge which gives police the right and ability to make citizens disperse even if they aren’t actually breaking any laws - by making ‘loitering’ a criminal offense.
What did Bill Clinton mean when he said, "it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is"?
On August 17, 1998, President Clinton was asked whether the statement by his lawyer Robert S. Bennett to Judge Susan Webber Wright that, “there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton [and Monica Lewinsky]" was truthful, President Clinton replied, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Clinton explained that if “is” meant “never has been” that is one thing; but, if “is” meant “there is none currently” then the statement by Mr. Bennett was correct.[The exchange between Deputy Independent Counsel Solomon “Sol” Wisenberg and President Bill Clinton was,Q: Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman. The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at Paula Jones deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" – it's page 54, line 5 – "Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton". That statement is made by your attorney in front Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?A: That’s correct.Q: That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?A: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the – if he – if "is" means is and never has been that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. But, as I have testified, and I'd like to testify again, this is – it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked about his lawyer's statements, instead of the other way around. I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was focusing on my own testimony…]
What would you use to differentiate a handgun from a rifle?
In the law, an “exit” and an “egress” may not be the same thing, for an exit may be blocked by a 2-ton punch press, which would make it not an egress.When is a go-kart that is powered by a lawn mower engine a motor vehicle? When is a swimming pool an attractive nuisance? You cannot find the definitions outside the law. The law created definitions. Since they so often conflict with common understandings, we have lawyers.Point being, the law does make certain distinctions that may not be made in common discourse -- defining things, so to speak, in a particular legal way.When am I waiting, and when am I loitering?The law has to define those terms in a particular and specific way.So, the term handgun if that's going to be used as a legal term must be defined in a legal, as opposed to common, wayAbsurdly, the same could be said of the term gun. What's a gun? Is a gun a gun if the barrel has been sealed shut with welds? Is a gun a gun if there is no ammunition available for it? If all the parts of a gun are sitting around in a disassembled state, is that a gun at that time?This is the kind of silliness the law has to deal with and has to define.So what's a handgun? What's a handgun as opposed to a rifle? Answer partly depends on what you're trying to accomplish.If you want to ban all guns but it's only politically expedient to ban handguns, you define a handgun as any gun that's operable and requires at least one hand to operate it.Silly yes. But that's how it's done.And eventually you start talking about stuff like barrel length and magazine capacity and total length and or weight or how easily it is concealed or what kinds of rounds is manufactured to fire, and if it looks evil, or if anyone killed an elk with it, and blah blah blah.And you happily find that in writing the law you are able to ban any and everything anyone might want to use that vaguely resembles a gun. You just call it the thing people seem to want to ban.Thus the deliberate deceit of dismissing technical discussions as mere “gunsplaining” in an attempt to hoodwink the public into thinking technical discussions are not relevant to proposed legal statutes.They are not only relevant, they are the essence of the thing.Thus the NRA.Before the law is written, there is no definition. In making the law, I would have created the definition; and having now created the definition, I can change it anytime I want.A handgun is whatever the hell I say it is. Which means I can ban whatever the hell I want.