Law Questions and Answers

The Mumbai High Court's orders against sex nouns before birth or at the previously stages.?

Today the High Court has given an proclaim to a couple and for all that near can be no sex discrimination for foetuses or at conceiving.Its a great move and kudos to the intermediary and Indian govt.

The parents did not wish to conceive a girl as they already hold 2 girls,they wanted a boy and blamed the Indian society for it.Such parents should be punished.Its a culpable misdemeanour.What do you all out near think?
Answers: Lack of background and illiteracy is the root cause. The poor dont enjoy any other entertainment and are brain dead and so they save producing faster than dogs. In the bargain they dont realise that we run into a healthy stability of women and men in the world. The world cant survive next to only men as they would foolishly approaching to believe.
Free education for every child should be mandatory for a better adjectives.
Wanting a Son is not a crime, sex determination of a foetus to find out if it is a boy or a girl, is a crime. The couple in examine have not broken any canon.

The law contained by question is the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
( Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Act, and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

For doesn`t matter what reason, the couple needed to be exempted from the provisions of these acts, which the Hon'ble High Court have rejected.
do not blame society...

its we/you who make the society... may be your friends relatives are insisting for son. not the society..

further presume of nation
.... you can only have a sneaking suspicion that to beat China contained by terms of Population and zilch else..

Is it legal to do "Whippets"?

you know.when you suck the atmosphere out of a whipping cream can and then throw the rest away?
Answers: lol...preserve reaching for those stars
I don't know but it certainly is lame.

I remember the cooks used to do that at a restaurant I worked at, but at lowest we were teenagers, I still thought it be lame then. Smoke pot it's better for you. :P
Do whippets, the gas container: Legal
Do whippets, the soaring ugy dogs: illegal
I don't muse there are any law against sucking nitrous oxide (but why would you spend that kind of money on a can of whip cream to get large for 5-seconds?)
legal -- yes
incredibly stupid since it kill brain cells -- priceless
yes it is wicked. It's just resembling any other drug. It gets you dignified and f*cks up your brain. If you get caught doing it you can get hold of arrested or fined. Why would you want to do that anyways. It's dangerous and massively stupid.
There may be some legal technicality that can be thrown at someone for doing that. Maybe product misuse or something similar to that, but the bigger issue is that it kills ALOT of brain cell. You only own one brain, it's probably not a great idea to interrupt it.

Should the US lower the age of consent, like Canada?

I am surrounded by no way a pedophile, I am not attracted to men younger than me, not to mention boys!!!! This interrogate is for intelligent, politically informed people simply...

My friend's twin brother just get charged with statutory rape, he be 22 and slept his willing and curious 17 year old girlfriend. His girlfriend is vigorously against the charges. He will be locked up and forced to register as a sex offender.

Is this rational? Does the punishment fit the crime? Is it worth the government resources to required charge, bring to trial, and lock him up? Your thoughts??
Answers: I don't ruminate the punishment fits the crime, being labeled as a sex perpetrator just for have sex with someone one year younger than is trial, and having adjectives the negative bags attached from being registered. But, the regulation is the law, and it's really not that different from adjectives the other screwed up laws the US have.
This is an interesting question. Is a fifteen year weak boy who goes adjectives the way beside his fifteen year old girlfriend a pedophile? I infer not. A fifty year old man who rapes a nine year out-of-date child certainly is. How going on for a fifty year old man who seduces a seventeen year ancient? A**h*** sure, but a pedophile?

A nineteen year old who sleeps beside a girl who is seventeen years and 364 days old is a pedophile surrounded by the eyes of the law, but the law are not perfect.

I do not ponder that a simple lowering of the age of consent is the answer. Human beings sexualy mature at roughly speaking the age of twelve to fourteen. I would not sugest the age be lowered to thirteen.

How about this;

If a sexualy develop young individual under the age of sixteen have intercourse with anyone smaller number than a year older than they are, though the parents may rightfully be upset, the elder person should not be call a criminal.

Between sixteen and eighteen, the age difference goes to two years. From eighteen to twenty, it is four of five years. At twenty, you're on your own.

Not supreme, but a suggestion.
He most likely is acceptance such a harsh cost not simple because the girl is underage but because they are 5 years apart. (That's how the law is surrounded by my state, otherwise it would be a misdemeanor) Legally it is statutory rape.

You know honestly I'm not sure if the punishment fits the crime, I do have mixed mood on it.

However 5 years difference is *a lot* at that age. Realistically he should be finished or finishing college and starting off contained by the real world and she is most imagined still in soaring school- in her junior or senior year. That seem like a world apart which make me wonder why a guy that old would be interested surrounded by someone that young.

Simply because teenagers do hold sex doesn't mean we should lower the age of consent. I devise that largely teen sex is harmful, too young at heart to handle the repercussions or be responsible going on for it terms of protection. I am for more comprehensive sex-ed but I don't really reflect that the laws should renovation.
the age of majority in the U.S. 18

The age of consent for sex vary by State Thre lowest in the U.S. seem to be 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AOCWo...
makes him a sicko and should consider getting next to girls his own age.

Why is Planned Parenthood expanding their ways of deception?

Not singular do they fight any legislation that would require an ounce of truth man told to their clients seeking counseling for an unplanned pregnancy (never refer clients to adoption agencies nor tell of financial assistance for have the child, at least contained by my area anyway) but very soon they decieve town and city governments give or take a few buildings they want built? If they have nought to hide, why are they so illusive in their procedure down to having buildings built?

http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/07302...
Answers: The article itself answers your interview. Planned Parenthood kept the nature of the building a not to be disclosed to avoid drawing protests from the pro-life side. If they did not, the protests would have delayed completion of the building and cost them money for the extra construction rescheduling.
Right to Life groups always resembling to skew things way approach out proportion.

Here's a thought - you do what you wish beside your body, and let other family do with their body what they please.
I don't see a problem next to the tactics used by the society having the building built. Maybe they be quiet in the order of it because they knew crazy anti-abortion fanatic would try and target them! You're making a big deal out of nil.

And please, next time you try to arraign Planned Parenthood of something, use an unbias source, not a Right to Life association.
Based on nutjobs like you, I'm not surprised they don't want it to be public education where they enjoy a building. And they actually do refer women to adoption agencies and other organization -- but they don't force them to do anything they don't want to do.

Just get rotten your soapbox and let it dance. You do what you want with your body, and tolerate everyone else do the same.

~ Edit: Pro-life nutjobs are most incontestably the reason why PP is not totally forthcoming almost it's facilities. Ask Eric Rudolph.
Just because you are against abortion doesn't parsimonious that PP "has not provided honest assist," and I never said that "there are no other organization out there to aid women." I apologize for insulting you, but your "question" was totally biased and base on inaccurate and even more biased information.

Public right to access our trash?

Why is it legal to verbs anything from my outdoor trash container and keep it - but its not lawful to take other stuff I put outdoors - approaching muddy shoes on the walkway?
Answers: This is a court satchel, that ruled that your trash is not covered under your 4th amendment rights

California vs. Greenwood

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless turn out and seizure of litter left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. Pp. 39-44 .

(a) Since respondents voluntarily gone their trash for collection in an nouns particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy within the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively adequate. It is common ease that plastic garbage plenty left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavenger, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their cry off at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself own sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal amusement that could have be observed by any member of the public.
When something similar to muddy shoes are set outside, there isn't a sense that the shoes enjoy been discarded -- the porch, or the steps to the porch aren't typically where on earth people set out things that they don't want any more. . . .

When something has be put into a trash can, it is obvious that the being is intending to relinquish his or her rights to whatever property be placed in the receptacle -- and as such, folks can rummage . . .

If you have grassland furniture, people can't gank it . . . because you typically don't throw your trash out contained by your front yard -- any more than you typically store your sward furniture or muddy shoes in the trash can, so that you can verbs them later.

Should killing a police officer get a stiffer penalty than bloodbath a civilian?

I'm not advocating slaughter cops, but killing a police officer is a federal offense. Why? What make a police officer's life any more costly than anyone else's?
Answers: I think oodles put their live on the lines hundreds of time a year to help others. "Laughter" is correct on the statement too-about what is a federal offense and beside whom.

Does the average citizen? How many times does the average citizen hold to answer a call that involves mobs, drug dealer, domestic, rapist, killers, kidnapper, nuts with guns, speeders who waste and so on.

When was the final time you looked at someone who had a gun on you? Ask most policeman it happen often adequate. I don't know any who would say never contained by their time as an officer.
Do they deserve perhaps a moment or two more consideration for protecting many and putting themselves out in attendance

It is not a matter that they are better than anyone else's time --it is a matter of they should receive a bit more from our justice system for putting themselves out nearby on a daily undeveloped. I think to me that deserves some consideration.
The argument for high penalties for butchery an on-duty police officer, or knowingly slaughter a police officer while he is performing his duties, is to offer added protection to those protecting us.

It's not the being that is more sensible, but the service being perform that needs added protection.

It also sends a message to society - police, criminals, and everyone else - that this function is major. It probably gives added incentive and comfort to those brave satisfactory to serve.

I have no objection to a properly worded statute.

Another interesting question!
NO!!!!!!!!!And I am glad someone brought up this interview!!
My life is in recent times as valuable as a cops!
I know that most police officer are out to help us, but damn it, that is to say their job.They take paid to do it.
And for some of you those who will say"Well they put their life on the queue for us", well that is to say true, but they chose to do that.No one forced them to do that.
I am very indebted for the job that some of them do("although some of them are crooked"), but civilians lives are only as important as theirs and the punishments should be alike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABSOLUTELY !!!

As fully trained and armed individuals that we hire to stand between us and the crazies of the world I should think folks would be a full lot more grateful to them and applaud any effort to see to their sanctuary.

Who do you think have always be our front line defense for homeland deposit? They've been without a roof over your head protecting and serving the public way up to that time that term ever become popular. And many own died doing it too.
It's always be the guys and gals in uniform contained by your own community that are there for you and if you ever owe your life span or the life of a loved one to their travels, maybe we'd adjectives be more grateful and better understand that bloodbath a law enforcement officer is similar to killing a soldier that does his charge at home instead of over seas. Because the work they do is a short time ago as much a war when their life's work is dealing next to the sickest and most violent segment of our society while trying to protect innocent victims and save the rest of us from harm.
i assume it should not carry a stiffer cost. it just a previlage so the police officer will be lest adjectives to the bad guys.

Insanity defense - prosecutors ever agree?

For you legal eagles out in attendance :
Has there ever be a case when a defendant claimed insanity and the prosecution agreed?
It seem that the prosecution will ALWAYS fight that and enjoy their own experts claim the person is not insane.
Has in that ever been a casing when the prosecutors agreed with the defense -
"We agree beside the defense your honor...it looks like this guy is merely plain crazy!"
Answers: insanity is rarely raise and almost never successful when tried to a jury. However, there own been occassions when the prosecution agreed. It is special, because the legal definition of insanity is fundamentally narrow, but it does develop sometimes. I am aware of two cases. One in which the defendant put a brick through a skylight of a construction trailer because he could see pressure building up inside and wanted to relieve the pressure. When the defense attorny met near him in the small town detain, the defendant had chewed much of the flesh sour a couple fingers. It took less than ten minutes to achieve an agreement and an order to achieve him to the nut house. Then a couple days to work out an agreement so that as soon as he was released, the prosecutor agrees to a decree of NGRI. The downside was that if he wasn't insane he probably would own got a fine. The rules of nouns, however, precluded the defense attorney from seeking that come to an end while his client was incompetent.
I don't know of any cases past its sell-by date of the top of my head of any cases where on earth the prosecution has agreed to an insanity plea -- but, I'm sure that within have be cases where it be used as part of a plea quibble.

The insanity plea, and being crazy . . . aren't QUITE alike thing, though.

I was "mooned" by an member of staff at my job. What action(s) can I pinch?

The entire incident was witnessed by another hand, but that person will not come forward and report to what he saw. This incident was reported to the HRM who, supposedly, initiated an investigation. I spoke beside an EEOC agent and was told that I may own a difficult time proving my case since the just witness will not speak up. What other recourse do I have?

The management seems to enjoy taken a very relaxed approach to my claim while I have be experiencing a serious emotional dilemmna between forgetting it - letting it stir - or take performance and stand my ground. I have file a sexual harassment claim against the hand and am now waiting to speak next to the company president.
Answers: I understand what you are going through. I have a guy expose himself to me at work and the company ignored it. I still to this daylight wish I would hold taken action. What you want is retrubution. An apology. For the guy to be repremanded for what he did. And the company seem to think it be no big deal. Meanwhile you are the one that have to deal near the emotional scar. And no, you weren't raped - but you were VIOLATED! Until it happen to someone they don't know how it feels.I speak don't give up until you take an apology in front of his boss. You probually don't own a case remnant on one isolated incident but he should be put in his place and at most minuscule suspened from work without rate for a period of time.
It sounds similar to you are already doing everything that can be done, as you have already contacted the EEOC and the company itself beside your claim.

If you are asking whether you should sue the company, the offending employee or anyone else, my proposal is that it is premature. If this is the first, isolated incident, you dont have much to groundwork a lawsuit on.

However, if this is part of a outline of misbehavior that the company is aware of and that you can document, that's a different story.
At this point, if you go any farther, I'm afraid the outcome is not going to be what you set out to accomplish. I would tolerate it stand where it is for very soon as hard as that will be. It is adjectives on record near your company.
If another incident happens, in half a shake report it and you will have a much stronger crust and the company will most likely be more prepared to take appropriate management.
Also, start keeping notes on the events that steal place leading up to this human being deciding to "show and tell".
those could be especially useful as economically.
I'm sorry this has happen to you.
Moon them back. Its not a big business. Quite funny actually. If someone mooned me at work it would probably craft my day a touch better, having a nice chortle. I'm sure no harm be meant by the alleged mooning. Take a chill pill, loosen up, be cheery your alive.

There are kids in pakistan adjectives you know... (that has nil to do with this)
As someone who be nearly sexually assaulted at prior job, I consider you are taking this waaaaay too far. Was it juvenile and inappropriate? Yes. Juvenile and rude things should be reported to the offender's supervisor.

Generally with sexual nuisance, you have to prove that it have created an offensive and demeaning atmosphere (one incident is not going to prove that) or that you be denied a raise or promotion. What happen to you, in my inference, does not meet any of above criteria.
Be totally careful how far you push this issue. As far as things that can develop in a work environment, this is simply not the most severe.

Before you yak to the company president make sure you know exactly what it is you want. The other hand fired? An apology with a promise of behavior close to that not happening again? Be in position because this question is possible to come up.

Whistle blowers are not appreciated at any company no matter what the circumstances are. Just by bringing this up you are setting yourself up for a rough time. Be prepared for your co-workers to estimation you as the 'bad guy'.

Let's frontage it, lots of folks who file discrimination suits end up mortal the ones to move on - not those who took the activities in the first place.
You're already doing everything that you can. You've already taken achievement and filed a claim. What do you really expect to begin?

I don't want to minimize your situation, but I think that referring to you human being mooned as a "serious emotional dillemma" is a short time harsh. It be a childish prank and a report was file that will likely be in motion into that employee's record. They might be acting carefree about it -- because it's not as serious as other instances or examples of sexual persecution. Don't take it so one-sidedly.

I'm pretty sure, based on how you're discussion here, that you're going to end up suing someone, and you'll clog up the courts system even more than it already is. This is exactly why when inhabitants are REALLY harassed (i.e., forced into sexual situations when their brief is threatened, or worse) don't get the attention and respect that they deserve. Because HR is too busy worrying in the region of you getting mooned.

What is the law call having to do near drunk driving? Is it called: DUI Law, DUI/DWI Law, Drunk Driving La

My child is surrounded by Drivers Education class and I've tried to search this answer on the internet. I'm confused and can't find the exact label. Thank you.
Answers: DWI- Driving while intoxicated (ref: alcohol)
DUI- Driving under the influence (any narcotic)

What is the term used when the statute throws someone in put inside without charging them?

This is a extra credit sound out for schoo, please help. Thank you!
Answers: holding
I thought it be called they are one detained.
.
its something about suspending habeas corpus.
habeas corpus classification literally to present the body
used today meaning that you hold to formally charge someone with a crime.
Lincoln did it during the civil time of war and George W. Bush did as well.
Arrest

More Questions and Answers:
[1664] - [1971] - [1298] - [1062] - [645] - [515] - [1497] - [1221] - [1737] - [2533] - [618] - [1564] - [152] - [1451] - [2222] - [1009] - [1459] - [1004] - [429] - [273]

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

Answer question: