Law Questions and Answers

Whats the exact wording for geting caught unknownly driving?

with a expired registration a friend of mines beside 3 kids was driving within a snow storm the cop was a butt come first and told her she wasnt allowed to drive vehicle once the he stopped her and she and he realized the registration be 2 weeks old she have no one to come go and get here and her kids so she drove home anyway she is upset cuzse he didnt even offer to escort her to the house so she took her likelihood and drove home anyway can she get surrounded by trouble for not leaving sports car there and is at hand anything to be done for a cold hearted cop who sees a single mother of 3 surrounded by a situation like that and act like a butt come first about it.
Answers: its not that big of a promise. and she had the right to drive home taking the most direct route.
I don't ruminate whether she knew or not plays any role. It's up to her to know the status of her license.
Sorry the cop be a butt head. That happen sometimes.
What David J said.

All I see is a bunch of words, with no shape or form. I don't even know where on earth to start.

I would report the butt head cop to the superiors at the station and articulate he should have deal with the situation better to some extent than leaving someone within danger.
The police officer should enjoy provided transportation of the woman and her children to the police station, in the pay for of the squad car, or call upon for backup.

If no legal driver surrounded by the family competent to come pick them up, then Department of Children's Services should own taken custody of the children, while mom stays in detention centre.

The facts of our civilization are that the DMV has a responsibility to issue license and registration to people who follow the rules, that are clearly spelled out, but oodles people choose to be uninformed of the law, and of their responsibilities to their fellow associates.

The police have the awsome responsibility of enforce laws surrounded by a society where several are scofflaws.

Parents have an awsome responsibility to bring up children to respect the law, by not setting bad examples.
Ignorance is not an exscuse. The proper possession is driving with expired tag or not having a valid regisrtation depending on where on earth you live.

No she can't get surrounded by trouble, and there are probably reason why the officer didn't offer to grant her a ride, such as liability.

And I find it hard to believe this woman was unmindful that her tags be expired. The DMV sends you a notice that the tag need to be updated at lowest a month in finance. If she didn't have the money that's more defensible, but still not an exscuse.
Being asleep at the wheel???

Sorry, but the cop be right. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and you should hold up with registration and driver's license and things like that.

Plus, he didn't owe your friend personal escort. He have a duty to all citizens to verbs patrolling, and not to help yourself to the asset of his patrolling bad the grid to escort your friend home.

You call him a cold hearted butt boss, but quite frankly, you don't speak he gave her a ticket when he could hold, nor did he give her a caution even. She could have be trying to support 3 kids and paying fines and court costs, but isn't.

You need to bring back perspective.

** Note: This is a general discussion of the subject event of your question and not endorsed advice. Local law or your particular situation may revision the general rules. For a specific answer to your put somebody through the mill you should consult legal counsel beside whom you can discuss all the facts of your travel case. **
I don't know what it's called surrounded by your state, but here, it's called driving near expired registration. It's not even a moving violation here. There's a fine and you gain your registration renewed.

Your friend got caught in the future out of two weeks. It could have be a whole lot worse. "He didn't even escort her," what he did be tell her to return with the registration renewed, then he vanished knowing she was going to drive home. Relax.
You know what, she is the butt cranium. She is a parent. Part of parenting is setting an example. When you drive you are in effect agreeing to drive according to the imperative. If the law requires registration be current, later you must comply. It is not the cops fault that she messed up to renew it. It her grown up responsibility to make convinced her affairs are in charge. If she is grown up enough to hold children, she is old satisfactory to handle her own business. There is no excuse.

And the poor me, I am a single mother of three BS get old definite quick. There are tons of single mothers that switch their business responsibly and don't sit there whining and on a pity see expecting others to take safekeeping of them.

As for the law and if she will be surrounded by further trouble. I hope so. She was ordered to not drive the vehicle. She failed to meet the terms the command. She deserves whatever she get and who cares what it is call.
He wasn't a butthead, he was enforce the law. She be breaking it.

There is no exception in the vehicle code that allows single mothers to drive short registration.

[UK]:do the religiously righteous have the right to dictate the law on the legality prostitution & euthanasia

if the prevalence of prostitutes is inevitable and ancestors wanting the right to choose the day of their ratification, is a feeling growing within strength amongst the general population...
why should the tenet of the land on these two topics, be swayed or cruel by the BELIEFS that the religious among us hold about marriage&sex...and almost the part an shadowy being did/or didnt play contained by our [supposed] creation, and therefore in the order of our right to make our own decision about the end of our lives?

do the religiously righteous have the right to build the non religious among us suffer--
[ deteriorating sexual health within the case of prostitutes driven underground...and pain&loss of dignity contained by the case of those who are terminally not a hundred percent or whose quality of duration is no longer acceptable to them] a short time ago so their prejudices and opinions can be upheld and receive the validation of the directive?
Answers: NO they don't. The last time I looked Britain be still a free country & there are adequate "DO GOODERS" trying to enforce their wills on us. Prostitution is the World's oldest profession & will be still here long after they are gone so to all so call do gooders. GET STUFFED.
good god man its boxing sunshine
lighten up a bit !
No but they should own their say newly like everyone else.
The religious resembling to meddle in everything so they do construe they have a right to dictate peoples lives.
If in attendance is a hell, it's fires wait for them
Merry Christmas to you too.
consent to me guess, you have to compensate for it while everybody else is getting it for free
Most of the UK laws are base on religous beliefs because the UK was a religous country, i don't suppose it should be based on religious beliefs because evidently they are not shared by everyone but i htink they should be based on what is morally right, if you can agree on on a shared idea of what is morally right to be precise...
I am christian and that is the foremost thing that influences my morals so it is one big contridictory circle for me, i can see your point as a non-relious creature though.
Easiest one to answer lol


NO
A brief answer to your question is no they don't hold any more 'rights' than the rest of us, they just muse they have.
I am atheist so I hold no religious views except to say they are adjectives BS!
OK that didn't take long to explain, I do enjoy views on prostitution and euthanasia, not base on religion just base on a 'gut feeling'!
Not all atheists will agree near my views, we enjoy our own opinions on adjectives other topics.
I almost agree with every item you have said , only just a couple of minor points , on euthanasia , I agree with the proviso that when they sort the choice some one can be trusted to confirm they are of sound mind, fairly a few countries do actually assist surrounded by euthanasia.
Prostitution?
Now that is a can of worms you own opened.
I once lived contained by an area that be full of street women , which meant it be also full of kerb crawlers , druggies, pimps etc etc!
The area be also full of Muslim families , I know their fundamental concern was the sanctuary of their families , they didnt want their Daughters or wife's harrased by these kerb crawlers etc!
The police didnt seem to be interested, they formed a group on their own and eventually got them adjectives moved away. Nothing much to do with religion that.
A lot of countries own legal brothels , medically controlled, no pimps, no druggies, no kerb crawlers!
What I am trying to articulate here is that "Things they are a changing"!
Perhaps not as fast as you or I would similar to, but they are changing.
As a recent example Holland, the citizens recently dumped the Christian democrats out of politics . great move , things hold improved greatly!
Things will not evolution overnight but they are changing and little nudge from the likes of your self will do no mar at all, maintain up the good work!!
Your answers even contain some virtuous words from Christians, they cant really be 'true' Christians, can they????

Why should there be abet for the subprime crisis?

It seems to me most of the subprime crisis is driven by typical consumer greed "I own to have the bigger better thing" similar to getting a fancy car you cant afford. Why should charge dollars go to lend a hand them? Itsnt the truth of anything signed is that ultamitly the BUYER is responsible. I rent an apartment why should I have to payment for Joe shmoes big fat house becuase he cant read paperwork?
Answers: On the surface I totally agree next to you. People should consider this an object lesson contained by buying things you cannot afford. Anytime a mortgage broker says they are giving you a lower rate up front so you can afford it, a everyday rational creature should be able to numeral out that rate will correct itself over time.

However, the problem is so large it have huge ramifications on the national reduction. If all these houses be to forclose at once, it would have dire effects on everyone else's property values. That would in truth cost you and I more than just bailing these ethnic group out and telling them to grow up.
Do you agree beside rent control?
All health and vehicle insurance fees factor in an amount to subsidize those who do not pay envelope any.
Are you ok with that?
Who approved those loans surrounded by the first place?
Greedy Mortgage companies like Countrywide .
In a unblemished world, you're right. Caveat emptor.

These people COULD read, but they mostly bought into overappraised homes and be under the indication they'd be able to refinance into fixed rates when their ARMs swung gibbering.

Still, you're right in a ultimate world.

Make no mistake: This isn't about helping the homeowners, it's something like helping the lenders who sold high risk loans and afterwards crapped out. If those lenders go belly up, the reduction turns into a train wreck the likes of which we haven't see since the Hoover years.
the subprime mess was not driven by consumer greed

it be driven by the fact that bank, brokerages and other lending institutions over-valued article that these mortgages represented

also, credit grantors granted the credit to people who typically would not have be able to purchase a house due to need of credit or other factors

the problem is that if these houses dance to forclosure, it has an effect on the stock bazaar, on companies that hold this commerical paper ( look at the losses for Citigroup, Bank of America, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and others ) and the cutback in broad

there are populace who are going to lose their homes because of all this and a quantity of people enjoy also lost jobs due to the mess this created
Well you lift some important points roughly human greed but the other greed is the lenders. The housing industry is a messy system and the subprime crisis is the way it is right immediately because banks and lenders considered necessary to make a rushed buck by LENDING MONEY TO PEOPLE THEY KNEW WOULD EVENTUALLY BE UNABLE TO PAY THE MORTGAGES. Most of the buyers know very little roughly speaking this sort of stuff and they were comfortable pickings.

GW Bush said that it is the responsibility of the customer to check the lenders out ,,,,,well the truth of the issue is that the housing and lending industry is not REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT VERY WELL and thats why they go and did what they did.

Any business owner knows you dont lend money to a customer who is a potential liability,,,,,,but these lenders and bank knew and they go ahead and did it anyway because they knew they could receive a quick buck,,,,,,,but they didnt verbs the crisis they would create months down the line hehhe.

In some ways you could articulate both the buyer and lenders are at fault but i ponder its more the lenders fault BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER THAN TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
I agree. We hold two used cars. I have hand-me-down, modest furniture. We don't own anything fancy, like a flat-screen TV. We do without plentifully of other things too. But, our mortgage and bills are ALWAYS paid right prompt.

So, I fail to think through why my taxes are now going to the home down the street who have two brand-new cars within the driveway of a big 'ole honking house because they wanted to buy a boat two months ago instead of paying their mortgage. I don't apprehend why my taxes are now going to general public who want to claim they were "tricked" into a contract because they suddenly forgot how to read or, god forbid, do their research. I founder to understand why we enjoy to fork over our hard-earned money to support people who lied roughly speaking their income on the applications. I say if you're this stupid and self-seeking, you deserve to lose your freaking house.

I don't understand why we save for years to put a nice down payment down on a place right inwardly our budget. Man, were we stupid. I guess we should enjoy waited to appropriate America hostage for our mortgage payment similar to everyone else.
I would disagree. Unethical lenders sell loans that they know borrowers can't repay. They don't fully disclose the facts to the borrowers.

I'm not so sure give or take a few government nouns either.

However, here will soon be an election and if the numbers of foreclosures will maintain rising and it won't look good for the discount or the republicans who whored themselves out to the bankers, so they have to look "compassionate."
I deem you raise an excellent point!

The largest (and perhaps only) motivation I can see for the banks to agree to a bailout is if NOT doing so would ultimately impair the banks, their other customers and their shareholders, and the reduction in standard more than a modest and imperfect bailout would.

I'm no expert. Time will describe whether this was a dutiful idea or not.
Great sound out. Hard to answer. Somehow, people insisted on lend more money to the current crop of idiots that already don't pay their bills. So who defraud who? I don't know. It depends.

There are some issues with securities base on these terrible loans that be sold, without the buyers realize how worthless they were. Again, who's at glitch? It depends on whether fraud was committed. There are two option, either fraud or removal of due diligence. One is the seller's fault, and the one is the buyers.

If you're a student of world history, you may remember that deeply of people tend to capture killed during a financial crisis. That's why they're entertaining thoughts of helping these bank out.
I agree with you. The buyer is responsible for their own appointments and I don't necessarily think that freezing rates is going to stabilize the cutback. First of all the investors that bought these loans are going to lift a loss that will have to be made up. Where will they variety up the deficiency? Well, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae own already introduced new pricing guidelines for loans within 2008. Cost adjustments are much greater than what they have be...meaning clients that are purchasing and refinancing will be paying difficult closing this coming year. So, all consumers will be effect one way or another which surrounded by turn could slow down the market anyway. The other alternative aside from freezing rates in my evaluation would be more beneficial for the economy: FHA safe and sound program. This program allows borrowers refinance their debt under the govt program by accepting lower credit score but this program needs drastic reshuffle. As a lender, the people that want to refi are still not eligible. I have also spoke to other lenders that hold not had luck beside this program. A big problem is prepayment penalties that some companies charged as okay as the clients are past due on other bills because they own tried to pay the mtg payments and borrowed money which increases their debt ratio. Instead of freezing rates prepayment penalty could be waived and used as tax income on these people to abet out and debt ratio's could be increased in faultless situations.

Could work laws be within the future where on earth a supervisor cannot use profanity toward an employee or howl at them?

Answers: In the US that is already against the ruling, you can have a supervisor arrested for assault for doing that, not to mention suing the company for allowing him to win away with that sort of behavior.
Well, that my friend is already a regulation. Verbal abuse is not ok surrounded by any situation including work. If you are being abused by someone consequently you need to dance over their heads to report it, or find a untried job. Good luck (you are cute by the way) and Happy New Years.

Is supplying Rapidshare download links illegal? Will you really be bang up?

One of my mates runs a site supplying rapidshare links for stuff approaching movies etc. Is it illegal? And is the police in actuality going to bother with it?
Answers: Yeah, i construe its illegal...but who care.
and btw whats your mates website?

Does "waterboarding" constitute torture?

Answers: Listening to people stir on and on about it constitutes torture to me! Hell, if you want to bring back picky about it next everything would be considered torture, i.e. confinement, handcuffs, loud blaring music, sleep deprivation, interrogation and etc. I doubt you'll find much information from these guys by offering milk and cookies to them and asking "Pretty Please?"...
That depends on which side of the event you are one. I am sure the one doing it doesn't see a problem, but the person it is person done to may have a different point of attitude.


cheers.
I have see on a documentary about torture, someone person water boarded. Until you see something similar to this with your own eyes and can perceive the fear that must come along near that event, I don't think you can truly enunciate weather you are for or against torture. And for those who say that if it will salvage a life so what. What if you brother or sister be captured by a country who's policy it is to torture for information, and they strapped you sister to a board, blindfolded her, held her feeler and poured water contained by her mouth till she thought she would drown. And she doesn't even have the information that they want. Just because someone else is cruel does not connote that we have to be also. We are better than that right?

Some questions?

I be wondering what's ethical or not in such situations. If you are the aunt/uncle/cousin/grandparent of a child, do you NOT hold the right to help them stay out of harms mode? Meaning you can't tell them to climb on the tv or bookshelf or run within the house or kick the cat, because you're not the kid's parents?

Or is it ok to alert them every now and afterwards to make sure they don't catch hurt? Do I make any sense?
Answers: From a legitimate stanpoint, you are free to give suggestion to anyone you wish. If your query concerns the reaction of parents when someone else tell kids what to do, there is another part of this site dealing with familial relations.
It is imperative if you are the full-size in charge to create a "reasonably" nontoxic environment and ensure "reasonably" safe undertakings. However, if the kid's parents are present, it is their responsibility.

With things that won't result in catastrophic injury, once within a while, natural consequences are a great tutor.
You have every right to share a child, known to you or not, that their routine could result in harm themselves. You also have the right to describe the parent or guardian that you have warn the child of the possible danger.

If the child is contained by your home then the parents or guardians of the child are to respect your property and fit tightly to your standards of behaviour.

Some parents/guardians don't approaching anyone commenting about their children's manner, but if the children are harming an animal, respectively other or damaging property I hold no hesitation surrounded by demanding they stop immediately. Nor, do I vacillate to physically stopping them by standing in their passageway, pulling them off respectively other or the animal, etc. But, usually my voice and bearing is adequate to make any one stop what they're doing.

I had adjectives my presents stolen from a locker at a greyhound, Why are there sick theives at Christmas?!?

And greyhound will not be held liable, and said they are not liable for lost or stealing. They won't let me display the camera's either, I be gonna go to the medium but they said there are no noticeable signs of breaking in the locker and i have the only push button but other peoples stuff were surrounded by the locker. Something is not right. Yes i checked if it was locked when i gone too! Even just to prove to me why can't they tolerate me view the fricken camera!?
Answers: Maybe it be one of the Greyhound employees who stole your stuff and that's why they won't agree to you view the cameras. That could be the unharmed companys job this year is to bear peoples belongings. Who knows, it could evolve. Go to the police and speak with them, if the police settle on it needs to be investigated further, later Greyhound cannot refuse to show the police the cartridge.

As for your question "Why are near sick thieves at Christmas"? It's because their ancestral, friends, and themselves are more important contained by THEIR life than whom they are stealing things from. Victims of raid are not important to the mugger, you mean nought to them. All that matters is that they are merry. I am not a thief, it's only obvious why race steal.
If you report it to the police, the police should be able to landscape the recordings.

I don't know why you don't mention calling police. They are responsible for catching criminals, not the media.
First, you enjoy my sympathy. But second, your question is approaching asking why a diabetic would rob a candy store.

Christmas is the best time of the year to be a thief, since the supply of meaningful merchandise in people's possession at any given time is astronomically high than at any other time in the year.

Third, lockers are useless. I could break into most lockers (and I assume the Greyhound lockers are this way) near a wire clotheshanger contained by about 10 second. Not secure at adjectives.

For those that believe in the disappearance penalty, is the firing squad a humane instrument to execute people?

Seriously.

Lethal injections are not humane. They can head to slow and painful death.

The guillotine was invented to manufacture a humane way to slaughter people. Trouble is, that sometimes, the blade wasn't sharpened adequate, and wouldn't cut the head completely past its sell-by date, leading to discomfort, or if it cut the head sour, it led to "living heads".

But what give or take a few the firing squad?

You're lined up against a wall, and shot. Dead, basically like that. I suppose this should be done with a 20mm autocannon to ensure swift release.

Of course, I myself do not believe in the departure penalty. Some 14% of those executed may be innocent surrounded by the US.

Your thoughts?
Answers: We should explore more ways in witch to positively convict someone so that it is a demonstrability that we have the right character when we execute someone. If there is determination then I'm not concerned roughly speaking the humanity of the execution, just as long as it is swift. A firing squad does the opportunity that is intended, take out the person convicted of a heinous crime swiftly.
As time goes by and immediately we have ways of determing dna evidence, these ethnic group wrongly on death row will vanish.
But many enjoy been in attendance for many copious years and were put near before science have so many improvements.

I really do not see your poisonous injection point as if you know the process that doesnt make sense.

However someone who did something so aggregious, so unpromising as to be sentenced to death, I really am not so concerned something like if its painless.
Although no one can honestly articulate whether they are for or against the death cost until they have lost a loved one to murder...
However, that said, did the murderer give mercy to the one(s) he/she murdered? Were they given a "choice" of how to die?
Don't conjecture so...
A lot FEWER innocent folks are on death row than surrounded by years past...
Zap 'em, shoot 'em, dangle 'em, put 'em to sleep.an eye for an eye...baby...an eye for an eye
How can the legalized system categorize fatal injection as not humane? When was the later time someone had surgery and woke up wacky at the doctors for all the anguish they experienced?

I am not saying that it can't transpire, just that it is not the expected result. To make a humane execution should require a procedure and process executed in a bearing to minimize the possibility of pain and suffering, not singular if it can guarantee NO pain and suffering.

In that regard, even though I am for the death cost, I don't think that the firing squad is necessarily the best method. While I don't enjoy first-hand experience at being shot 6 or 7 times within the chest, I can certainly think that it would be possible for the person to be injured and next slowly slip into unconsciousness previously dying. That would seem inhumane to me.

Think nearly your statement about the "living head" scene from the guillotine method. If that method be eliminated because the individual may still retain consciousness after beheading, then how could a entity not potentially retain consciousness after a firing squad? Proper sedation should provide a reasonably expected possibility that the personality will not suffer unnecessarily.
I don't think the departure penalty be ever meant to be humane and that's why I'm for extermination by claw hammer. Better nonetheless, death by victim's line and friends wielding claw hammer? How about baseball bat too?
It always seem that when this discussion comes up everyone forgets the victims. What about their misery and suffering?

For a Lawyer or Judge.????? what happens?

what happen on a second DUI offense in smaller number than 5 years?..when i was 19 i be stupid and drank and drove, that DUI really shook my world, scared me, presently i am 21 and went out next to a bunch of old friends after work, have a few drinks and my designated driver ended up drinking instead, so immediately i was screwed near no driver. i live an hour away from where i work so i stopped drinking , have a bottle of water and have to go home.i be exhausted and drove all the road home. i was 2 miles from my house when i go straight at a light, instead of turning and terminated up in a bush! presently i have my second DUI and am really worried. similar to i said i live and work an hour apart and LOVE my job!!! immediately i wont have a license and not a soul to help me payment for any thing. i am going to lose my mission and have no path of paying.i have voluntarily made an appointment next to DAF for an assesment, what is the standard procedure for a second DUI? and for a judge.is it better for me to income for a lawyer? or speak for myself
Answers: You didn't hold a designated driver, you had a goofball for a friend. If you truly have an understanding that he would not drink on that hard to please night, afterwards you learned a markedly valuable lesson roughly that person and his integrity and commitment to you. I assume he lives in close proximity you since he would be driving you home that night.

Anyway, the second offense will be much worse than the first. However, within most states, you may be able to grasp a restricted license to allow you to drive to work. Unfortunately, you probably should retain a lawyer to back you get through this situation that know the laws and penalty for your state.

Good Luck
First, I'm no judge but I will narrate you that you should have a legal representative. A public defender will probably represent you, but save, or if they do not have the time to bequeath your case much individual attention, you should try to hire one who is experienced doing this sort of grip.

As for the rest of your question, the permitted consequences depend on the state you live in. See the intermingle below for more detail if you live in the U.S. Most, possibly adjectives, states have mandatory minimum sentences for first, second, and third offenses, next to no room for judges to exercise their discretion. You will probably lose your license, but surrounded by some states there is a instrument to get a restricted right to drive to and from work only during your license suspension. Because processing that paperwork (IF your state have such an option) will undoubtedly take some time, during which you would be unlicensed, it is vital to speak to an experienced attorney who may be able to comfort you delay this or speed up that contained by order to minimize the impact on your competency to hold your job.

That said, I should mention--in my state, Pennsylvania, a third offense is automatically some serious secure unit time. Be more careful contained by the future, okay?
Ahhh the brilliance you express! Dimwit, where on earth do you live and what are the laws governing DUI within that province, state or country?

You're asking for specific jurisprudence information in an international venue. Duh, do ya regard the alcohol you have be consuming has finally interferred beside your brain's ability to root and rationalize?
Get a lawyer who specializes surrounded by DUI or a public defender. Do not represent yourself.

It's possible that the police may enjoy made a technical mistake contained by your arrest. Without a lawyer you will never know.

I am not a attorney. Only lawyers can contribute legal push for.

More Questions and Answers:
[2221] - [2167] - [177] - [648] - [720] - [1714] - [2180] - [2128] - [1960] - [802] - [2074] - [26] - [2297] - [1111] - [57] - [1486] - [325] - [769] - [1764] - [1441]

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

Answer question: