Law Questions and Answers
What charges are facing my sister for stealing $170 in merchandise from mechanicsville VA walmart?
she took a camera from a roll worth approx $170 and the police charged her for taking the entire package of $170 but she with the sole purpose had the camera nil else included in this collection. the camera is approx worth $115. she is also on a lot of medication due to severe vigour problems which is no excuse but some are mind altering pain medication. should she just plead guilty or return with a lawyer due to adjectives of the medication and poss misjudgement on her part? what face her in court? she have NEVER ever been contained by any kind of trouble ever for anything!Answers: Check near an Atty. But why is she allowed out if she is so incapable of making rational decision?
Virginia
§ 18.2-103. Concealing or taking possession of merchandise; altering price tags; transferring produce from one container to another; counseling, etc., another in gig of such acts.
Whoever, short authority, with the intention of converting stuff or merchandise to his own or another's use without have paid the full purchase price thereof, or of defraud the owner of the value of the stuff or merchandise, (i) willfully conceals or takes possession of the produce or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, or (ii) alters the price tag or other price mark on such goods or merchandise, or transfers the produce from one container to another, or (iii) counsels, assists, aids or abets another surrounded by the performance of any of the above act, when the value of the products or merchandise involved in the offense is smaller amount than $200, shall be guilty of petit larceny and, when the value of the commodities or merchandise involved in the offense is $200 or more, shall be guilty of impressive larceny. The willful concealment of goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment, while still on the premises thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner thereof out of the efficacy of the goods or merchandise.
§ 8.01-44.4. Action for nouns and employee pinching.
A. A merchant may recover a civil sensitivity against any adult or emancipated minor who shoplifts from that merchant for two times the unpaid retail utility of the merchandise, but in no event an amount smaller quantity than $50. However, if the merchant recovers the merchandise contained by merchantable condition, he shall be entitled to liquidated damages of no more than $350.
B. A merchant may rest a civil judgment against any creature who commits employee thieving for two times the actual cost of the merchandise to the merchant, but in no event an amount smaller number than fifty dollars. However, if the merchant recovers the merchandise contained by merchantable condition, he shall be entitled to liquidated damages of no more than $350.
C. The prevailing group in any bustle brought pursuant to this section shall be entitled to defensible attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $150.
D. A conviction of or a plea of guilty to a violation of any other statute is not a prerequisite to commencement of a civil management pursuant to this section or enforcement of a result. No action may be initiated underneath this section if any criminal feat has be initiated against the perpetrator for the alleged offense under §§ 18.2-95, 18.2-96, 18.2-102.1, or § 18.2-103 or any other criminal offense defined below subsection F. However, nothing herein shall preclude a merchant from nonsuiting the civil feat brought pursuant to this section and proceeding criminally underneath §§ 18.2-95, 18.2-96, 18.2-102.1 or § 18.2-103 or any other criminal offense defined under subsection F.
E. Prior to the commencement of any act under this branch, a merchant may demand, contained by writing, that an individual who may be civilly liable under this slot make appropriate return to the merchant in consideration for the merchant's agreement not to verbs any legal undertaking under this subdivision.
F. For purposes of this section:
"Employee theft" mode the removal of any merchandise or cash from the premises of the merchant's establishment or the concealment of any merchandise or dosh by a person employed by a merchant lacking the consent of the merchant and with the purpose or intent of appropriating the merchandise or currency to the employee's own use without full wage.
"Shoplift" means any one or more of the following act committed by a person minus the consent of the merchant and with the purpose or intent of appropriating merchandise to that person's own use minus payment, obtain merchandise at less than its stated sale price, or otherwise depriving a merchant of all or any module of the value or use of merchandise: (i) removing any merchandise from the premises of the merchant's establishment; (ii) concealing any merchandise; (iii) substituting, altering, removing, or disfiguring any sign or price tag; (iv) transferring any merchandise from a container contained by which that merchandise is displayed or packaged to any other container; (v) disarming any alarm strip attached to any merchandise; or (vi) obtaining or attempting to get possession of any merchandise by charging that merchandise to another person lacking the authority of that person or by charging that merchandise to a fictitious soul.
Get a lawyer, they could lessen the punishment for consideration of self on the medications. Plead not-guilty and ask the find to appoint an attorney if she can't afford one, if she can, talk one presently so they can get near the DA prior to her arraignment date.
Is torture really necesary?
I was surprised when discussing the query with a Baptist minister, that within spite of the Jesus "turn the other cheek" teaching, he feel Jesus would've made an exception for terrorists.Answers: Of prisioners of war?
Not at adjectives.
When you torture people, you can capture people to allow to anything. Information under torture is habitually useless for this reason. The target will say anything to prevent you from torturing population. You can get relations to admit to anything while lower than torture.
Would Jesus have made an exception for terrorists? Well, given that contained by the Bible, He did permit slavery and other of other immoral things, probably he would have. But the Bible imply that Jesus is not perfect, a prophet, yes, but not an infalliable one.
Going posterior to torture, I don't think that much advisable information can be extracted. Often, those at places like Gitmo are individuals at the wrong place at the wrong time.
For genuine terrorists, capably, you've got fanatic that would most likely sooner die than articulate.
Yes. Just think of how the two police detectives who took Miranda's confession by tricking him feel when the Supreme Court threw out his murder conviction because he hadn't been informed of his rights!
In an individual luggage, if you knew that someone have information which would save innocent lives, you would enjoy to trick or torture it out of him. But is that the best policy? Tough decision.
Obviously policemen, soldiers and private contractors from CIC do not possess the trusted sensitivity needed to make this outcome. That is why we require warrants and hold habeas corpus in the USA.
So why don't we simply admit that it is not fitting for the US to torture people. We can simply turn them over to the Iraqi defense forces who have greatly more experience in torture than we do.
it depends on what torture is
i dont assume waterboarding or high pitched noise are really torture, but we do need treat these culture somewhat humanly
terrorists don't count under the geneva conventions:
1.) they dress as civilians
2.) they target civilians
3.) they didn't agree to the geneva conventions
'Turn the other cheek.' does not suggest, 'Be passive, and consent to someone slap you again.'
It means, "Treat me beside the respect due an equal, and do not backhand me as you would a slave. I am not your slave. Slap me with the palm of your paw, not the back of it."
I can't speak for Jesus, but I individually believe that some torture techniques, if applied cooperatively and without pleasure, for fixed amounts of time, to gain desperately-needed information to save lives, are permissible.
Torture performed for the sake of cause pain and watching someone suffer is never necessary.
I don`t know about the bible item. But for ages, the practice of torturing continues even now as I am writing within the NYPD lockup cells. As my Ah Beng friends would said, "No torture no answer ley, must hantam till drop blood after can get result except how? You tell me lah"
P/s: Hantam surrounded by Singlish means: hammering
Leh and lah is a common closing of a sentence.
If you want to know more roughly speaking Singlish, go to:
www.talkingcock.com
Well, the book of Matthew (5:43-44) would come across to indicate otherwise
43Ye have hear that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and repugnance thine enemy.
44But I speak unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do worthy to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (KJV)
Though at hand are a LOT of different interpretations of the Bible (hence a lot of different denominations), so YMMV as other.
On a practical side, torture isn't particularly adjectives in summit information (though it can be quite adjectives in making even the most innocent - as in good health as not so innocent - of individuals confess - if you're into that sort of evil thing). And doing nothing is far from the one and only alternative to torture in vocabulary of intelligence gathering (field agents, electronic surveillance, perfect old fashioned background analysis to connect the dots, etc) are far more useful within gaining reliable notes..
Is torture really necessary---well of course some form of discomfort given to a individual is necessary to coax information out of them.
After all--if your chubby and happy why recount the people you hatred and want to kill, anything.
Just what constitutes torture and what constitutes discomfort is the issue.
Now for sure--Jesus would not obligation to place anyone in dis-comfortable positions. He be able to look into the souls of race. And with a nice word or a lecture he could sway those to follow him.
We don't have that option--we enjoy to get information that save peoples lives while the person we are probing is still a viable source of that information.
Not as long as we don't do anything that harms them permanently---I don't really consider it torture. Water-boarding, Scaring them, making them too hot or to cold, depriving them of sleep for periods of time, adjectives back on their calories to construct them hungry. (as long as they are not underweight for the NORM) I consider this all okay to do for a country.
Now this become more of a problem if that person is a SOLDIER from a COUNTRY and not a terrorist.
Water boarding him, or scare him or making him dis-comfortable then become an issue. But then again he is a soldier. And if he target civilians--then he can be tried by the same Geneva Conventions that bleeding heart like to shield the terrorist near.
Torture does not work.
Something that does not work cannot be necessary.
Liberals have ruined to close our military options within Iraq?
Liberals say that we can't justifiably use White Phosphorous (or White phosphorous-like compounds) on Iraqi civilians...BUT they are wrong:As long as we just claim that the White Phosphorous we use on Iraqi civilians be ONLY intended for illumination & smoke peak we can use it on them as much as we like...
The legitimately depends on the "stated intention" (as long as we say we have no intention of using WP on civilians, we are legally surrounded by the clear).
Question:
Why do liberals claim that we are not legally valid in using WP on Iraqi civilians when (in reality) the authenticity of how we use it is really a non-issue (so long as we adhere to the restraints inside the legal loop holes of "stated intention").
More info of what I'm conversation about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah%2C...
Answers: I can't picture anyone trying to justify--for the sake of "illumination"--dropping such a weapon of mass torture and murder (because it melts the flesh of anyone who is simply contained by the vicinity of this stuff and can be carried by the snake as well) on innocent children, the elderly, men, and women. It is a crime to humanity which is far from moral and Christian.
Dont you have any morals? Some things are simply flat out WRONG. Whether or not they're legal, it's freshly plain wrong!
I'd really hate to enjoy someone like you as my neighbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosp...
Just contained by case society do not understand what W.P. is and what it does to relations.
I read your question a few times tring to desire if you are just tring to start crap or you are serious. Why don't we a moment ago simply start burning them at the steak. W.P. is a horrible weapen designed to inflict terror as very well as kill and mar.
War is the result of leaders having bad feeling tantrums.
There was never an excuse to invade Iraq. They be a sovereign nation that held no threat to us whatsoever. They were contained, the sanction were working and diplomacy be not in Bush's vocabulary.
Dropping anything on Iraq, except as a direct threat to our containment hard work, is not justified. Especially when it comes to civilians.
Bush is a mass murderer, overhaul it on.
Peace
Jim
.
If someone is mugged and that person is latter identified, would it be possible (in practice) to sue him?
For instance, I met someone who had her wallet stolen and may or may not hold been physically hurt. Suppose she have been. And suppose that the suspect be caught. It's certainly possible for the casualty to sue the perpetrator, but in practice, what would take place? For example, the man would have no assets, the woman would receive threatening junk mail, or pleas from him or his family, etc. What really happen?Answers: "Nothing from nothing leaves nought." If the guy is mugging folks for money whats he got that anyone would want? Certainly nothing money. Nor assets to convert to cash.
is in attendance proof. if so, of course.
do you remember the greedy Golmans and Browns population who never turned an honest days work; they sued a man who was found innocent of murder; and they won!
How great is America! The singular country in the world that scream you must democratize and then trashes its own constitution.
The sufferer can sue the perp for damages. If there are no medical bills, no lost work time, and if the stolen property is recovered, it would be difficult to win such a suit. Plus, the perp is probably broke, and a druggie to boot.
So contained by theory, sure. But it would probably be a spend of effort.
Yes. Civil cause of action could include assault, for the valid apprehension of bodily harm or touching which occur, and battery, for the abhorrent touching.
Damages are another matter. Surely could restore your health real damages (say hospital bills for injuries resulting from battery). Since intentional tort, may be capable of recover damages for moving distress and pain and suffering.
Other civil cause of action may be available too, including intentional infliction of electric distress, depending on facts.
Yes, she could sue her assailant, and - contrary to what the other posters said, she wouldn't need to hold actual damages in lay down to do so.
Assault is what's called an "intentional tort", which channel that punitive damages are available.
However, as several other people said, if the guy's a bum and a mugger, what is he possible to have that's worth suing for.
On the other foot, if he does have assets, he can be sued for them. In the other crust someone mentioned, after OJ killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he be still able to to be sued civilly for the damage he did to their families by bloodbath them.
Richard
sue and win, then collect? Some states enjoy victim compensation funds available. Many state courts will require compensation from convict to get parole/probation- must recompense back from required work to stay out of detain. Hidden assets may turn up- a vehicle being register can obtain a lien slapped on it and seizure movements for for unpaid compensation order. a court ordered compensation unpaid can be used to achieve lottery winnings, tax refund. a judgment within your favor at least get you aggravation rights- get special collection agent to ask him to recompense or go to jail- police catch sight of about collection that they are supposed to do, convict refuse and 'attacks' collection agent, collection agent beats convict and have him arrested, judge get record of refuse convict being beaten- and if no credible witness for convict - distribute convict to jail for contempt. May tip off collection agent to be cautious.
Can an Abortion be covered by temporary medical ?
Answers: http://www.hyscience.com/photos/abortion...
You would own to check the coverage policy of your medical plan. If you're on COBRA, I think that's supposed to cover everything your prehistoric insurance used to cover, as long as you pay it within full each month.
If the abortion is medically crucial, I'm pretty sure it would be covered, with no problem. If it's elective, consequently they might not cover all or any of it.
Why do lawyers come across to get the job in court, senate, including lobbyists, and "agents" skimming off 10%+?
Compare political affairs "lobbyists" for special interests to "agents" for athletes, writers or actors.Are they adjectives about one and the same?
Why are "lobbyists" less permitted than agents?
Are you afraid of the back-room government lobbyist's influence and power within the capital, for apt or evil?!?
Is there ANY "checks and balances" on lobbyists, similar to there is for elected governement? If not, why not?
Can their power be controlled? How? Are thy beyond the law of the land? How di you have a feeling about them???
Answers: As Madison wrote contained by Federalist #10 there will other be "factions". The only means of access to eliminate factioning would be to verbs liberty (he compared this to eliminate oxygen just to put out a fire).
The fortunate entity is that there are so oodles factions that they counteract respectively other. Ambition counteracts ambition.
Their power is controlled and we continue to make the addition of restrictions on lobbyists.
There are virtually no controls on lobbyists.
The only track they could be controlled was if the associates rose up and DEMANDED it.
But you will never get satisfactory sheep to do that. Most Americans do not care and you can't get them.
Law-yers also get "their end" for playing "their part".
Is 10% worth it? Will it lend a hand escape wrath to come?
Who does wrath come upon in 1Thessalonians 5:3?
Let "them" own "their end".
Let "us" go on unto perfection.
For they can't be made idyllic without us.
His Grace --> Mercy ---> Peace beside you all. Amen.
How to quash a Presidential rebellion?
I have this thought the other day (just hypothetical): Let us suppose the US Supreme Court issued an proclaim to the US President and that President refused to comply. If egregious ample, Congress could impeach and convict the President. Let us suppose, upon conviction, the President refused to walk out Office. Let us, further, suppose the entire Executive branch staff (Secret Service, Justice Department, etc.) "fell in line" losing the President and moved to keep the President contained by Office. In short, in this scenario, the Courts and Legislature are attempting to enforce the Constitutional Law, but the Executive branch have "rebelled". What guarantee exists to make sure the President complies? Who could force the President to leave your job? What's more, how could that person/people do so?Answers: You have the wrong finale of the stick.
The Supreme Court has no authority (Other than writs of Habeus Corpus, or of Mandamus) to 'order' the President to do anything.
What would transpire if the President ignored a ruling of the Supreme Court?
Ask the Cherokee's.
When the Supreme Court ruled that the forced removal onto the "Trail of Tears" to Oklahoma of the Cherokee from Georgia and surrounding areas be illegal, the President (Andrew Jackson, the founder of today's Democratic Party) simply said "Justice Marshall have issued his ruling. Now let us see how he plans to enforce it.", and sent Federal Troops to round up the Cherokee and drive them from their homes.
Richard
theres around 300 million people surrounded by the country and that's a lot of society
if we keep the federal senate small and limited the executive branch should not enjoy enough power to supress 300 million nation
separation of powers. President cannot be given orders by the supreme court. As president He is immune from court movements for any acts committed as president. If congress impeach and the senate removes him. He has no choice
he is no longer president and can be forcefully removed. If the presidential staff attempted to hang on to the president in near . They are guilty of treason and would be arrested by the new president and his staff
Chatroom problems?
someone posted my home telephone number on a chat room and i received some insolent telephone call which i turned into the telephone company on telephone call trace. But another person claims he can run a framework employment check and obtain information more or less me based on my scheduled telephone number contained by the white pages and will post adjectives my personal information tomorrow in this chat room.I emailed verbal abuse for the operator of the website but they emailed me backbone and said they will take no movements and refuse to do anything.
i call the police today but they said it was not a crime to post peoples personal information on the internet
Answers: i am no attorney but if i am wrong please correct me.
no one can run a conditions check on you without your signed sanction. If any employer did that they would have a undamaged new problem for them contained by a legal liability. Especially if they be out of state and you had no previous contacts near them in any route shape or form.
you did not say if they hold your ss#, if they dont they can not run one anyway. Anyone can pull any heading out of a phone book but background investigators will not run a short time ago based on an address and a entitle, too much potential for fraud.
just an thought is to pull your credit reports subsequent week or so and see if there are any strange hits on them, if so do not step RUN for a lawyer and wallet suit. You will win easy if they do not hold a signed authorization.
you put too much though into a bunch of clowns who probably spend 24hrs a day impress each other because they own no life rotten the internet.
move on next to life and they will find a clean victim to get on your nerves.
what someone probably referred to was public information explicitly available all over the internet and solitary 1% of it has any meticulousness
also do not pay money for the lifeguard or similar b/s they do nil but take your money.
i hold had clowns steal my pictures and use them to post my personal information adjectives over chat rooms in times past and probably still do i am sure. Feel great about yourself if they enjoy to impersonate you, you are a public star. None of the chat room clowns will ever have the guts to show up on your door because they can not make disappear behind a the ivories and monitor
Get yourself on Lifelock immediately, and catch an unlisted telephone number. If you are a minor, consent to your parents know what happened without delay.
Basically, you can't be sure how much of your private information has presently been made public. If someone have your Social Security number or credit card numbers, you're in a bleak position, and you need to protect yourself from identity break-in pre-emptively.
Homeowners: would you not protect your household and property?
If a carload of punks pulled into your driveway, where you retribution the mortgage, who dont even own a home, in the middle of the dark, uninvited, and began threatening you or anyone on your property, would you not approachable fire, and would not a sawed-off shotgun be the most effective weapon?Answers: I wouldn't use a sawdoff, I prefer the meticulousness and tighter pattern of a full choke butt. (and a throwdown weapon to make it adjectives nice and legal)
The law does fundamentally little if anything to these thugs. If they had the suspicion of being kill instilled in them, maybe WE would control our country instead of the criminals.
Threatening me with what? You connote words?
You'd better have a damn apt reason for butchery another human being or you're going to young offenders` institution for murder or manslaughter.
Don't you have police where on earth you live?
They have guns and they know how to use them and when.
If you don't hold cops who can get to you summarily, find out why and do something about it.
a sawed past its sell-by date shotgun may be a good ocular weapon but is intended for close range and would be a poor choice contained by your scenario. You would want something with rather more range so you do not hold to get so close.
As for shooting them, depends on how they are threatening those on my property. Depends on the situation.
If one of them threatens you with a weapon, after sure. Otherwise, you can't shoot somebody just for trespassing surrounded by your driveway or your front yard. The common principle in most states is that you cannot use terminal force merely to protect property, only for protecting existence. You would simply have to retreat into your house, lock the door, hail as the police, and keep a gun all set at your side if you wish. The courts see a huge decriminalized difference between somebody just person on your land and somebody breaking into your home, but within the latter case you can usually shoot an intruder near impunity. If somebody actually breaks into your house, after you have no choice but to assume that you are surrounded by physical danger.
ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL DETAILS:
If you receive bomb threats at an airport, the cops there would enjoy you grazing on tilework and off to a holding cell contained by 2 seconds, but they won't plausible shoot you if they see that you aren't actually armed.
ANSWER FOR TEXAS:
Ah yes, I do believe they enjoy a law in attendance allowing you to shoot trespassers after dark. But that's Texas, which still have all kind of laws on files that date from the 1800's. Even where that's legitimate under criminal ruling, I guarantee the trespasser's family would draw from some goddamn litigation attorney and still sue you in civil court for Wrongful Death, and within the end could interweave up owning your property so I really wouldn't recommend doing that. My personal policy is that one should always try to retreat back resorting to using a weapon. The bad guy might steal or make worse something, but it's cheaper than having to reimburse the fees for defense lawyers :-/
A COUPLE MORE THINGS:
Being a homeowner surrounded by a somewhat shady neighborhood myself I can sympathize with your position, but I really ponder you should check out these pages about self-defense. You'll find a lot of great guidance there that can hang on to you from getting killed, as okay as help hold on to you out of a courtroom should a dangerous situation arise:
No Nonsense Self-defense - http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ind...
The "Castle Doctrine" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doct...
The "Duty to retreat" principle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_ret...
I enjoy a Winchester model 1300 Pump-action 12 gauge riot shotgun loaded near 00 buck next to my bed and for a while 18 in tub 4-10 Snake Charmer under my living room couch and a 357 Magnum S&W below my pillow. Laws vary from State to State. In Texas underneath the Castle Law, you can shoot to protect life and property. In Missouri, where on earth I live. You have to steep threatened and that your life or someone else's vivacity is in exposure. So check out your State law. I live channel out in the country where on earth there a several Meth Labs. I would weigh out the situation because the law are so vague. But if I feel myself or anyone I love was surrounded by danger, I would not pause to pull the trigger and I wouldn't shoot to injure any. I would shoot to kill!
Now that the superior court has found that it"s legitimate for politicans to lie, how can anyone believe within our sys
Answers: A lie is subjective, what is one people version of the truth is another individuals lie.
A political feign is one that a politician knowingly lied or withheld central information from the public that would show they did not have a shield.
Recent example of that is Bush and his war.
Peace
Jim
.
Can you name any politician that doesn't sprawl? Have you checked their voting rocords against what they actually read out? LOL.
More Questions and Answers:
[2537] - [1064] - [1293] - [1063] - [2196] - [1686] - [653] - [271] - [2453] - [2108] - [2378] - [671] - [635] - [2056] - [976] - [1554] - [1893] - [959] - [2061] - [2363]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: