Law Questions and Answers

Please Help with Law Question?????

What are some criminal cases, current or olden, you may have read of or own knowledge of where on earth the collection and or admission of physical evidence be controversial or deemed inadmissible?????
Answers: A recent highly-publicized one be the OJ SImpson case.

Maxine Carr living and working in Derbyshire - are you positive about that?

After finding out not long that Maxine Carr is not only living underneath 24 hour police guard in a nice (free) house contained by my town, I am disgusted to discover that my tax payments are going towards the police guarding her while she also works here as very well!
Why should I find this acceptable and why do the authorities judge that this would not be offensive to citizens in the nouns?
I for one don't want her here but I would be interested to know what other people suppose?
Answers: I live in Derbyshire and I didn't know this! Whereabouts cos is is unsound. If she has to live somewhere can't they dump her on an island surrounded by the North Sea!
Well, since we (thankfully) don't have the demise penalty contained by this country and she has served her sentence (albeit too short), she have to live somewhere.

You could always start a protest group.
Right. Her ex-boyfriend, Ian Huntley is a double child murderer, near various other allegations come to street light since conviction.

Is she a murderer? No. So what is her crime? She's a stupid woman, who lied to the police to protect the man she loved. I don't think she believed he have killed the girls. Thousands of other 'not fundamentally bright' women with boyfriends near 'strong personalities' might have done one and the same. She went to prison for nearly 3 years for this sin, which was possibly a bit generous.

What will happen if she is forced to live publicly short protection? Someone will kill her.

Does her crime deserve the disappearance penalty? No. Her boyfriend's crime might (not surrounded by my opinion, but I can see where on earth 'hangers' are coming from on this one).

So do we abandon her to the lynch mob, or tender her a new identity and protection?

I infer that the treatment of this case by the popular press be over-sensational, and led to a stupid immature woman being demonised for the crimes of her boyfriend.

Huntley should be disappeared to rot in prison for the rest of his days. Carr should be departed alone to live in peace. If she requests protecting from members of the public, afterwards I'm afraid that we, the public, will have to retribution for it. The alternative is to allow the lynch mob to rule, and while you might not like Maxine Carr's crimes, remember, she murdered not a soul.

And if we allow the lynch mob to rule this time, who do we set them loose on next?
i totally agree next to you, i cant believe that most of the answers are siding with maxine carr! oh my god, yes read the facts, she coverd up for him, that to me is guilt, she know what he had done, mabe you should read the book by hollys dad, it have some very intresting facts, are any of you do gooders parents?? honest to god it make me sick that you think she should be protected, she is a sick woman. and i dont expect that in the under the weather sense either. and if she is earn a living then why should taxpayers money turn towards her living expenses and protection, if shes that bloody scared consequently she should use her earnings to reward for plastic surgery to protect herself!

Right to life - who's choice is it?

"We hold these truths to be obvious, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator near certain unalienable Rights. . ." We're granted the right to natural life, liberty and the pursuit of optimism.

By that same account why can't we be granted a right to choose to downfall our life?

Would you support legislation granting you, of self of sound mind and plea, the right to end your life span if you so choose? Say, you're terminally ill, surrounded by pain and own nothing else to live for. Would you want the right to choose to closing stages your life or should we place that right inwardly the hands of legislation that oppose it?
Answers: You already have the right to choose to shutting your life! It's phone up suicide. However, you don't have the right to ask someone else to do it for you - putting their freedom within danger and bringing their motive into quiz after you are gone. That is selfish and irresponsible.
I don't resembling abortion, but I think it is the Woman's right.

It is her body, and she have the right to choose.
I don't think we stipulation this kind of legislation, since it's not wrong for you to end your own time. It's illegal for someone to assist you contained by doing so, but no one can stop you from choosing to die.

Making it lawful to assist others in suicide is an entirely different event, I'm not sure if I would be for or against that, or even if the government have any business regulating it.

Morally I think suicide is wrong, but that doesn't speak at adjectives to the legality for or against it.
While suicide may be dubious, it is rarely prosecuted.
I see no root for more legislation. I think that we own plenty of laws already.
If you choose to winding up your life, you can do so in need fear of prosecution.
As long as I am mentally able to do so, only I can desire what will happen to my body.
The establishment isn't living my life, they shouldn't know how to make my personal choices. Nor should someone know how to tell me what to do, a moment ago like I can't share them what to do.
The right to choose--should be up to the bearer.

I work in a long-term Nursing facility as an RN. I believe surrounded by dying with dignity. A individual can elect not to have CPR, a feed tube, antibiotics or any other means that might be considered as life-sustaining procedure.

The means of access this is done is through a Living Will along with Advanced Directives. It must be packed out by the person involved if they are competent to do so. If they are not able to do so, it can later go to the subsequent of kin assuming they are the Durable Power of Attorney (the one who makes medical decision when a person is incapacitated or not of nouns mind).

The most important item is to get this type of paperwork done beforehand someone is incapacitated. Remember the Teri Shiavo case? Republicans fought to preserve her alive? This should NEVER be up to the politicians to decide. Ever! But the paperwork is a must.

We also insert & remove feed all the time according to the family's wishes, short a court order. This is usually the course it is done in my state (Iowa). Usually here is no one that truly goes to court to stop a feed tube from being removed or inserted (like the Shiavo case). It is done day by day in Nursing Homes & Hospitals throughout the US. In Teri Shiavo's shield, the politicians jumped right on it when they should hold had without doubt no say within the matter at adjectives.

It should be up to the person 1st & the relatives 2nd. Period. No exceptions!!

Arrested for putting to much salt on burger?

describe me your views?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_o...
Answers: I regard as the officer abused his power by arresting the girl. But I do know that excessive salt could put to death a person beside heart problems, diabetes, blood pressure problems, and pregnancy, so it was a silly entry to keep and use the oversalted meat. It should own been thrown out, not "thumped to remove it". The restaurant could own afforded the loss.
First of all, it be not too much salt ON a burger. If you read the article you will see that a container of brackish spilled INTO the meat from which many burgers be made. Depending on how much salt in attendance was, it could own been pretty dangerous for some. That is why the individual be arrested -- charged because she served the burger "without regard to the well-being of anyone who might consume it."

I doubt it was a felony and if individual a misdemeanor she'll get credit for time served and it will be over. Must've be some huge amount of salt since promptly food burgers are already bursting with it. How do you make clear to the difference?
That police officer is stupid!

Laws Limiting the number of dogs in a household?

So i read that Georgia come out with a unsullied law that near is only allowed to be 3 dogs within a house at a time. This is in response to the Michael Vick incident. Im curious to judge if most people expect it is a Valid law to enjoy or if others like me believe it is a vandalism of your Civil rights. I believe as long as they are cared for properly and man taken care of it is a contravention of civil rights. what do you all construe
Answers: There are already enough law on the books to protect animals and the neighbors of pet owners. This is a "preventative" imperative; one that punishes people who MIGHT recklessness their animals.so much for innocent until proven guilty. Yes, it's a violation of your rights.
i ruminate it is a valid law because even though it slightly inhibits YOUR civil rights, it protects the form and wellbeing of the DOGS, or atleast attempts to. doggies gotta own some rights now too, and most folks cant properly care for more than three dogs. theres alot of pet restriction law out there, most of them are f¨ēte. but if you want more dogs maybe bring back some sort of buisness liscence to run a kennel or somethin.

If someone licenses software for a tax, is there an assumed warranty of non-infringement?

If I bought a license, salaried a fee and signed an agreement to be exact silent on whether the software infringes or does not infringe any third party rights, is within an assumption of non-infringement?
Answers: No.

Mananger asked me to leave for the afternoon for no good defence?

yesterday my manager who doesnt' individually like me asked me to bestow half bearing into my shift "for abandoning my position" because I go to the bathroom without recitation him that I was going. (I work at a restaurant for crying out loud). After he told me that I said im sorry i didnt know

20 minutes next he hears me recitation a waiter what happened, official tells me, "is in that a problem" and i said "yes, might be" because I felt similar to he was treating me irrationally.

at this point he tells me to clock out and dance home, i asked can we talk roughly this and he answers "i have a restaurant to manage", so i said thats fine, so i disappeared like he asked.

article is, 2 hours came rotten my paycheck, and usually we get nearly 35 dollars tips a night. There are two bussers and our tips are split evenly, he get 35 I get 35, but yesterday I be only given 17 dollars and the other busser 45.

is this permissible? can i seek my money lost that morning from a court?
never had disciplipline problems surrounded by past. 1 yr wrk
Answers: You be sent home for a valid reason.

You be instructed to ask permission to jump to the washroom, you apologized, said you weren't aware. Your manager permitted that.

Now this story would end here if it weren't for the reality that instead of getting back to work, you underminded your bosses authority and started discussion about it near another employee (Now two of you aren't working and gabbing something like the boss!)

I'da sent you home too.

You didn't work, you don't get the pay cheque.

Since you went home, the other busser have to work twice as hard and he deserves the tips.
No, you will not receive "damages" - the executive has the right to transport home employees esp contained by restaurants as he sees fit.

Do you regularily agree to him know when you go to the bathroom? Let him know you'd close to to be advised of the rules (you probably tossed your handbook) so you don't carry in trouble again.

Also, continuing to try undermining the proprietor among the other staff is dumb even if they do it, don't get delayed in it. Your hours/schedule is at his dispossal and very soon he'll be on the lookout for you badmouthing him. Either find another job or play by the rules.
Since you did not work the hours you are not due wages for those lost hours. Yes it is legal, your employer can dispatch you home, you work at his convenience. You are lucky you got any tips.

Sure you can sue, however you can't win.
You be reprimanded for doing something you shouldn't. You then took this issue to a coworker - on work time and when asked you get an attitude, so your boss sent you home.

You think your defence is...what? Your boss is a meanie weenie?

The second busser probably was given extra because you be not there to do the work (duh!) and he have to do double duty to make up for your fantasy.

Put on your big girl panties and deal next to life contained by the real world. Your boss have a right to send you home for insubordination..or any other apology he sees fit.
You are probably thinking roughly speaking the princible of all this, but trust me it is not worth going to court over it because you hold to pay fees for file a complaint to get your $18 support
You are going to waste your time beside it.

Call it a day, yo'll find a better living. Don't forget! There is not a place on earth where on earth it is fair.

Karma is the best entry in cases as such..it works!
Time to look for a strange job.

I got sent my payroll check and it didn't own a signature and I signed it.. I'm I in as big trouble as I gaunt

I think?

Ok so I get sent my first payroll check and I had to drive one hour to the nearest guard to deposit it. When I arrived I was told I couldn't bread it because it wasn't signed. I was out of gas and I have no way to draw from back home so I signed it and deposited the money. Depositing it unsigned through the atm and taking a moment ago $20 out was not an remedy cause I have $200 overdraft fees. I let my employer know as soon as I get home that I was forced to sign the check and she didn't vote anything. Could I still be charged with forgery? btw I signed my own signature not another heading...
Answers: As long as the check was the right amount - you did a devout thing by putting your own designation on it, since they can't necessarily get you for forgery.

You aren't on the description, so the company (or individuals) bank that wrote you the check might enjoy a problem depending on how close they look at the check.

If the person who wrote the check doesn't charge, their bank probably won't see, and as long as the amount was right - and you didn't try to adaptation it, you are probably ok.
Start job hunting. YOu aren't authorized to sign the check. Your employer have to be less than impressed even though it's their show disapproval to an extent as well; but it's strong to imagine handling a problem beside a first paycheck any worse.

good luck
don't verbs about it, basically play as dumb as you can

tell them you thought that be were you be supposed to sign it.

the bank shouldn't bring back to pissed.

your employer is a different matter - but next again it was their mistake not signing the check 1st.
There are no bank closer?

You couldn't sign a different name on the check? (i.e. John Doe)

The edge teller didn't lock in this?

Yikes

Sounds like you could be surrounded by trouble for something but not sure.

If you had signed a different pet name and didn't say anything, contained by a large company this probably wouldn't hold been caught... but I'm wondering why it wasn't signed to originate with. Since you said something it could come stern to bite you in the butt... Best be arranged to talk to someone to get hold of some real court advice contained by case something does come of it.
This exact point happened to me once EXCEPT I be lucky enough to be much closer between the dune and work, so I had to drive rear to have the boss sign the check. I don't expect you can get contained by trouble for forgery. The only entry that could happen would be your employer's edge might question the signature on the check, and may or may not cry off to honor it (meaning your paycheck might bounce). If your employer finds out that you signed the check they may or may not be upset, but I don't think you'll hold to worry give or take a few having any generous of charges filed against you. The worst would be you'd be looking for another assignment.

My advice-- don't do it again. Ever.
I think the nearest piece that you can be charged of is vandalism (just kidding). Anyway, I don't think you would be charged next to forgery. I don't think, too that you would carry your money from that check since the check didn't bear any authorized signature.

What to post on a coat check sign denouncing liability for lost or damaged belongings?

Could someone put in the picture me what to say specifically very representative sounding and very clear. We expect nought to go wrong, however this is worst defence scenario.
Answers: You may want to check with the regulations where on earth your establishment is located, even if you post a sign, local laws could supersede this announcement.

The coat check areas that I am identifiable with will own a sign stating the the customer uses the coat/property check area at their own risk and the Management is not responsible for lost or tatty belongings.

Good luck and have a well brought-up day.
Coats are checked at your own risk. Not responsiblefor lost, tattered or stolen belongings.

Does a misdemenaor charge stop you from owning a gun in maryland ?

Answers: Not sure, but you will definately find out when you apply for the voucher. Try searching the maryland judiciary websites, or ask at a gun shop. I'm guessing that it would depend on what the misdemeanor charge be, and how old you be.

More Questions and Answers:
[1503] - [41] - [59] - [1371] - [439] - [1939] - [2404] - [863] - [221] - [659] - [1237] - [1740] - [2531] - [1370] - [1710] - [1120] - [1147] - [2456] - [1668] - [2107]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: