Law Questions and Answers

If you shoot someone in Texas.?

Do you own to give them first aid or are you supposed to of late stand there? Couldn't a advocate say that since you consent to him die, the point of your shooting wasn't self defense, it was murder since the point of a self defense shooting isn't to slaughter but to defend yourself and once he be on the ground dying he was no longer a threat? I'm assuming you a moment ago let him die but I'm interested surrounded by what y'all have to read out.
Answers: There is no legal condition to render aid for which you may not be qualified to provide, however if the police are not called as soon as possible I suspect that could create an issue.
Don't in recent times set here waiting for an answer, call 911 to find him help.

If you don't know first aid you can't confer it, but you should at least try to grasp them some help.

Even if you are not contained by Texas.
The law assumes you will feat reasonably to aid an injured party. In this case, you'd enjoy to supply some aid while waiting for the pros to get their.

You throw away your defense when you intentionally backfire to do something that would aid the person. That's an error of omission, and it is a short time ago as bad as committing an accomplishment that would further take the person's duration.
I think that you are shooting someone surrounded by self defense you are probably shooting to kill that human being. If that person lives after shooting them I don't cogitate it is necessary to minister to them up and clean sour the blood just because you are a bleak shot. I think that calling 911 would be appropriate.

Signing over custody?

I want to sign over custody of my son, to my parents. Im a single mother, he sees his father sometimes on the weekends. He doesnt wages child support. His name isnt on the birth licence, even though we did have a DNA oral exam done. Would he have any read aloud in signing over rights? I live contained by NC
Answers: >> Would he have any utter in signing over rights? <<

Yes. His custodial rights to custody are superior to your parents,' unless he consents or your parents adopt your son or avail themselves of doesn`t matter what legal procedures are available to support custody.


** Note: This is a general discussion of the subject event of your question and not trial advice. Local law or your particular situation may amend the general rules. For a specific answer to your interrogate you should consult legal counsel beside whom you can discuss all the facts of your satchel. **
You cannot sign over custody to your parents without his authority - filed contained by court before a adjudicate.

If you don't want custody, he's has the right to apply for it himself.

He is the father and have all alike rights and access to the children as you do. You can't make arbitrary custodial decision without him.

In English law, have the next-of-kin the legal right to see the accounts of the Estate of the departed?

The deceased died age 100 years going away a Will. The next-of-kin (daughter, only surviving child) have been departed a small fixed monetary legacy. There are two Executors. One is an woman in her eighties. The other is a retired Solicitor, who also held Power of Attorney for the departed and administered her financial affairs for many years. He is a significant residuary beneficiary of the Estate. Probate have been granted and the estate is presently being distributed. The Executors will individual pass the minimum information to the loved ones, each of whom have been not here a small monetary legacy. A copy of the Will be obtained beside difficulty and the size of the Estate, lb500,000 was singular discovered from instigating a search.
Answers: They are screw you. Report them. You have a permissible right to a full accounting of all assets and their distribution.
If probate have been granted, the will is public property so ANYONE can see it.
There is no drive why the Execs shouldn't let you see the estate accounts, unless they haven't complied next to their instructions.
If you've seen the will, you know whether they hold complied.
Any beneficiary is entitled to see the Estate accounts.

Does a loaded weapon prove intent?

I was on jury duty just this minute.

When it came down to discussing intent, I thought a loaded pistol proved intent to use it. After adjectives, why else would the robber use a loaded gun if they did not plan to fire it? The robber could have used an unloaded weapon. The argument put forward be that the robber used the weapon accidentally when the person human being robbed fought back. The argument is that the robber have the right to defend himself against the casualty (that was killed).

Is it impartial to think near was an intent here?
Answers: The robber did not hold the right to defend himself when the sufferer fought back.

Anytime someone uses a gun contained by a crime, if someone gets kill while perpetrating the crime, even the robber's associate, who was shot by a "victim", consequently the robber is charged for murder (felony murder).
I agree, I think it shows intent.

"used the weapon accidentally"..LOL. Geez, I hope the jury sent hindmost a verdict of GUILTY.
When a individual commits armed robbery, he is responsible for whatever happen. I think specifically a legal issue, not a event of intent.
Once the crime is committed, the perp can say anything to try to mitigate the crime.
I reckon you have murder in that but not pre-meditation. Had he come in shooting you hold intent. If he were simply trying to rob and walk out without shooting, and shot merely after being attacked later there is no per-meditation. However it is still murder 2nd or 3rd level I believe, or possibly manslaughter, because a death resulted while he be committing a crime. Had he not been attacked it is credible no death would enjoy occured. Many people nouns there guns and never shoot them because of all along time needed to load. A safekeeping properly used prevents accidental discharge. The gun contained by my house stays loaded though I hope to never have to use it.

Did Romney's Speech on His Religion violate the Constitution?

Article VI of the American Consitution states "“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any organization or public trust under the United States."

Yet Mitt Romney feel he had to explain his religion, to please a group of folks whom he fears will only vote for those who go beyond such a test, and who hold criticized the fact that he is Mormon.

A poll taken by CNN shows that a majority of Americans don't vigilance about the religion of a President, that his religious belief is his own private business. When John Kennedy ran for organization, his Catholicism was criticized and he spoke of his belief contained by the Separation of Church and State, describing it as "absolute,"...and go on to win the election.

Should the Separation of Church and State next to all religions treated equally be "absolute"? Should Romney enjoy tried to explain his religious beliefs when only a division of the country was interview them? Can we have Freedom of Religion if any group have precedence over others?
Answers: I think his speech is further evidence that nearby is a religious test that must be passed within order to hold bureau as a republican. As we can see from this administration, the constitution really system little to the republican party unless it serves their purpose. They held religious and political affiliation against copious people who applied to work for the federal governing body during the Bush administration.

The material shame, in my evaluation, is the evangelical church holding candidates to their religious experiment and actively working to get the candidate of their choice elected while pretending that they are not supporting either deputation in directive to avoid a clear violation of the ruling.

It may be possible for evangelicals to continue their current role within american politics without one in betrayal of the law, but they should at lowest surrender their tax exempt status and stop pretending that they are not violate the law, and, they should not be allowed to pressure their elected candidate into using religion or party affiliation as a exam for employment within the federal system. That practice is definitely a contravention of the separation of church and state and a few other laws.
It wasn't a religious tryout that prompted his speech.

It wasn't required.

It doesn't violate the constitution.

Was it necessary? Maybe. That be Romney's call to produce and he was fully in his 1st amendment rights to make it.
Whether it did or not, he lost the presidential see when he admitted that his religion would guide him contained by the decisions he product for the country.

He has looks but no brains...apparently.. He is not the "new" J. F. Kennedy
If anything the Constitution guarantees him the right to spawn the speech and say what he said. Its call freedom of speech.

If a candidate be not allowed to hold or express their religion, then that would be a religious exam and would violate Article VI
Separation of Church and State should always be considered genuine. It is one of the cornerstones of our republic.

However, his speech in and of itself is not unconstitutional because he as an individual can choose what he requirements to talk something like given his right to free speech. No one said to him 'You will not be allowed to run for office unless you outdo this test by giving a speech.' Or, if they did, he still have freedom of speech in that he should own known no examination is required.
Well, that 'fraction' of the country represent the main foot of the Republican party. While here is no 'religious test' in the constitution, surrounded by the eyes of a lot of Evangelicals, at hand is. I think its mournful that Romney has to preserve his religion, but I dont think its unconstitutional for him to do so, and I reflect on it was a necesarry step.

By the passageway, I dont think his religion would affect him surrounded by the general see, but it could certainly affect him surrounded by the primary.
Anything Mitt Romney says surrounded by defense of his faith or beliefs is not within violation of the Constitution. He's allowed to vote anything he wants within his own defense or promotion.

Anyone who attempted to BAR him from the office of President because he's Mormon would be within violation of the Constitution. It cannot be done justifiably.

Remember that Romney is running for the REPUBLICAN nomination. A large sure voting block among REPUBLICANS is made up of Evangelical fundamentalist Christians in the Charismatic tradition. Those VOTERS are not accepting of Mormons. And those are the voters he have to win over. If he wants to go and get nominated by REPUBLICAN voters, he knows he have to address this considerable prejudice against him that THEY hold.

It may or may not be true that most Americans don't care in the order of a candidate's denomination/religion. (I'd like to see that but to the theory test if a candidate be Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Wiccan - or pretty much anything but Christian). Among Christian denominations, I think most Americans do not comfort. I also think that most Christian Americans who are not fundamentalist evangelicals scene Mormons AS Christians, so Romney's denomination is of no concern to them.

But the irony for Mitt Romney is that a liberal or moderate American is the kind of American who is most potential to view Mormonism as freshly another Protestant denomination and of no concern to them. Liberals won't vote for him at all because of his renewed conservative stances. Moderates are not expected to trust the fact that he be a liberal as Governor of Mass, but claims to be no longer.

So it's the conservatives who would vote for him at all, the vastly people who are most credible to view him as a appendage of a "cult" and not being Christian.
we adjectives beleive in GOD we basically cant force how you beleive in him.

Worried about the outcome at court?

I am 17, and I backside ended a guy. The ticket be written for following too close behind which I am gulity of so I can't tale. I had my attorney adjectives set up to try and knock it off my history because I am so young. I own court tomorrow, can't get ahold of my legal representative, the office be closed, I cant even get ahold of my parents. What's the best and worst that could appear with out an attorney? Please don't post unless you know for sure, I don't want to be freaked out for no intention. THANKS!
Answers: What david s. says.
if you really do own an attorney, he will be there tomorrow. this is not a big agreement to him. its a big deal to you.
i regard as you are going to be just fine.
i quality (by alot of experience) that judges are to a certain extent nice people to immature people that are hot to all of this.
if your attorney is a no-show tomorrow put in the picture the judge that. i suggest he will give you more time.
The best item that can happen minus an attorney is saving gob of money OR the judge could decree a stay on the case. If you enjoy paid this attorney a retaining fee and he does not show up, he is inattentive and can suffer consequences. This is legal malpractice.
The WORST piece that can happen is that you take run over by the plaintiffs lawyer. You would be especially vulnerable contained by the court since you probably do not speak legalese. Any judge worth his or her saline would postpone this case for denial of representation.
If your attorney doesnt show up in court ,when they appointment your name stand and vote "your honor my attorney isnt present and I havent been competent to reach him by phone" may I verbs this case until Im competent to contact him? be polite and humble

If you have a crminal environment?

and they do not ask you about it within an interview, should you tell them up to that time they send you to do a check or should you dally to find out the results of the check and then bring up to date them about it?
Answers: Personally, I recommend answering adjectives questions on an application and during an interview completely and truthfully.
If you aren't asked, tolerate it ride. If asked, tell the truth and other include what you've done to clean your vivacity up. If they don't ask and then squawk "Why didn't you recount us?", respond "You didn't ask. And I'm more than willing to hand over you a complete answer."

...and most places have a request for information about that on the application; at least possible checking about felony.

When it turns up on your background check, if it's not reasonable to the employer then it's their right to deny your application. If they want to hear going on for it, they'll ask.
wowww.
i think you should write within on the application but make it nouns better
there's no question so I newly wait.
Unless you deceit about it on the application, you should preserve quiet. I reason they need your signature to catch a background check.
Wait for the interveiw and see if they do a BCI check if so agree to them know up front at least your showing honesty and hope for the best.
I would lurk.
if they r going to check tell them. they will deduce better of u

Can you have felony on record next to no conviction?

friend is under the impress he has felony on his criminal record, but he's never be to court or charged or convicted with a felony. Is it possible that they can put it on near without doing it properly??
Answers: No. You cannot enjoy a felony without a conviction. What story is he talking almost?

Phurface
No

Do you think criminals should own constitutional rights or loos them when convicted of a crime & get them?

support after they have rewarded their debt to society? No paroles,early outs,clan visits,but only just study & get an background to be productive when they are released.I've heard that edification them to care for others such as the older & sick has help them greately but its been stopped is this true & why stop it if it be transforming their lives to be a better citizen?
Answers: IMO, They should have own constitutional rights. However they should be given longer sentences with incentives to work bad a portion of their time.

They should have different work programs so that the immates are provoked to actually do something productive. Ones that don't cooperate be given worse conditions/longer sentences.
everyone deserves a defense, and everyone have the right to try to live in society. if at adjectives impossible, the justice system incarcerates them for energy without the possibility of parole.
"an eye for an eye" is newly old-fashioned and stupid.

Full-time employees at my career are entitled to every 2nd weekend off. Why am I not getting mine?

I work full-time dayshift, and I am supposed to hold every second weekend off. Almost adjectives of the full-time employees find their 2nd weekends off, except for a choice few. It seem like we're other being forced to cover for the antediluvian women (some who haven't even been at hand as long as I have,) and the mothers. I receive that some of them have kids, but it be THEIR decision to double their own workloads. Their wanting to breed have nothing to do near me. It's bullsh't. I'm tired of hearing the excuses, and I don't want to switch job OR be fired. I just have need of this job to pay packet off my tuition, but it's still an inconvenience. Legally I am entitled to 48 consecutive hours bad every 2 weeks. What would you do if they persisted on scheduling you for every weekend? I'm tired of covering for everyone else. I'm tired of audible range every excuse in the BOOK. I never know it was this difficult to spawn a schedule -- among FOUR manager, even! My last boss handle it quite fine on her own. Fkn morons.
Answers: You if truth be told have no entitlement to 48 consecutive hours sour. You are bound by your employment contracts.

Yes different employees receive different treatment any because they have negotiate thier contracts differently or been given a special accomidation. Either course, if you do not like it vacate. A company is under n responsibility to accomidate an employees programme. You are bound by your employement contract.
Unless you have a written employment contract or work within certain sanctuary sensitive positions (i.e. long distance truck driver) there is no requirement vis a vis time bad. Instead, our country has opt to discourage excessive work hours by requiring premium pay for personnel who work more than 40 hours a week.

If you dislike the hours required by your employer, you have two choices 1) finding another situation or 2) speak with your chief and offer an ultimatum. Obviously, resort #2 is more credible and safer for you, if you have explored #1.

You may also find yourself beside a different view of the accommodation made for those with children and elder workers, as your life change.

More Questions and Answers:
[131] - [1814] - [1038] - [2544] - [553] - [322] - [1237] - [1448] - [1971] - [1449] - [457] - [2445] - [1574] - [727] - [1939] - [1841] - [207] - [1937] - [1225] - [1077]

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

Answer question: