If someone has a bench warrant in one state, could that person be arrested in another state for that same bench warrant?
I have read almost all of these answers. I am originally from Indiana, and the state places a rider on all their misdemeanor warrants that it is enforcable only within state boundaries. Now, I seen almost all of the answers her are from people with law enforcment back grounds. Not to upset anyone but police officers do not spend the time and money attorneys do on an education. When there is a rider on the warrent it is placing a legal jurisdiction or enforcement on that warrent. And that warrent is then only a legal document in the boundaries of jurisdiction of that document. Outside of that it is worthless, nothing more than toilet paper. So it is my understanding that it you are out of jurisdiction of the warrent as stated on the warrent (which at the time the officer runs a check it is stated there it) and arrest you only on the basis of that warrant then they have commited a legal kidnapping and have falsely arrested you due to the fact the officer already knows the jurisdiction of the warrent and what the intent of the issueing court is on the extradition. So yes you should take care of the warrent as soon as you can, but understand that if you are checked and you are in fact outside the limits of the warrent. It is no longer a legal document and can not be enforced at any cost just like a city police officer had NO jurisdiction in another city that is not within his state. In fact if that police office from NV came to my state of Florida and tried to use his badge in a official capacity he would be arrested for impersonating an office. If the law is like that for the jurisdiction of a person what do you think they would be for a pirce of paper. And remember to alway demand (not ask) to see the warrent and to read it completely before you sign it. Some jails have been known to pass off the warrent as extradition papers just to get you to sign the warrant. Sorry to any law enforcement officer i may have upset.
Why is it said bankers led to the 2008 world crisis?
1- People tend to like simple stories and to look for scapegoats to blame when something goes wrong. 2- In a way, bankers are the perfect scapegoat: nobody really likes their bankerit is said that borrowers sometimes resorted to killing their bankers a few centuries ago when they owed them too much money (rather than working hard to pay back the loans)they often refuse to lend you money when you need it the mostthey are viewed as boring and risk averse at best, if not outright exploiters (charging interest rates is or was banned by many religions for a long time) they sometimes make a lot of money (especially investment bankers) 3- I personnally think they are partly to blame but that the blame should be shared more widely:it is clear that some subprime loans should never have been issued in the first place... lenders should have looked at borrowers' cashflows as well (not only asset value)borrowers should not have borrowed so much, especially not with floating rates... though at the time the thinking was that the property value (which kept increasing) would cover the loan in case of problem...... and there was a heart-warming patriotic story about helping poor people live the american dreamrating agencies and investors themselves did not do a good job assessing the credit risk of CDO debt tranches... ...though at the time the thinking was that the portfolio of loans was diversified... ... and that the US had never experienced a country-wide collapse in real estate pricesrates were probably kept too low for too long by the Fed (cheap money)regulators and politicians did a poor job supervising the banking and shadow banking industryetc etcIn a word, many people (not only bankers) were greedy, reckless, lazy and/or foolish!PS: Now it all looks very clear after the fact but not many people predicted this collapse :-)