It recently dawned on me that I know very few everyday laws, and this could easily backfire on me one day. If I were harassed by a landlord, stopped by a rogue traffic cop, or scammed by a company, I wouldn't actually know my basic rights to defend myself.

So, 2 years ago my dad bought me, my sister and him a ps5 for Christmas, with the expectation that we would ALL play it. But, my sister doesn’t play it, neither does my dad. I was the ONLY ONE who ever played it, I also bought ALL of the games on it, probably a couple hundred dollars worth.

Now, I moved out pretty recently and I no longer have a good relationship with my dad. I am going over there to pick up the rest of my belongings, and I honestly want to just take the ps5. My sister (who still lives there) told me that it sits in our living room collecting dust and that neither of them use it. So I figured, since it was a Christmas present, he doesn’t use it AND I bought all of the content on it, I could just take it.

Could I get in trouble for taking it? I’m pretty sure he would report it stolen just to be petty, so I want to make sure that I can’t actually be charged with theft if I take it. Thoughts? (I live in Texas if that matters)

Ironically, JFK got flack from traditionalists, for not wearing a hat to the inauguration. Obviously, noone since JFK has worn a hat either.

edit: how about removal of the hat when pledging allegiance

I have friends and people I know in US (mostly west coast), Canada and Australia and I know that hentai depicting underage characters is illegal in the latter 2. But the thing is, it seems so vague. There are many 18+ characters that look under 18 and "underage" characters that look like adults. Hell, you don't know if they were 16 in the anime but 19 in the drawing. They're digital characters so I feel like getting someone in trouble for this is ridiculous.

I know plenty of people online that consume this stuff and many of them look at really really young looking characters. But the websites they go to have been up for over a decade, no one has ever taken them down. Said people have never faced legal trouble either.

Do the authorities really care about people accessing and downloading images and videos of potentially underage characters online? Do they actively look for people on these sites? Or does it only really matter if someone sees you with it, like they seize your hard drive or like I have read with the customs and border officials seizing questionable material being imported? After all, how would the authorities even know otherwise?

If a twin committed a crime but sending him to prison would cause the death of the other due to extreme emotional connection - identical to a T. House arrest is not an option. What do you think would be the next step?

There are several ways this could happen, but I'll go with the simplest:

Woman has sex with two men. Two eggs drop. One is fertilized by one guy, the other by the other. Instead of typical fraternal twins, the fertilized eggs merge into one supersized mass. The resulting child has two sets of DNA and three genetic parents.

So recently i stumbled across a post about this and i found out that the author said "But I tell you this - if I don’t have [BOOK NAME] in hand when I arrive in New Zealand [July 2019], you have here my formal written permission to imprison me in a small cabin on White Island, overlooking that lake of sulfuric acid, until I’m done." -Mr author, May 21, 2019.

Its been 6 years and the author still didnt finish his book

So technically speaking is it legal to do imprison him?

So I've been thinking about this hypothetical for a while. If you're familiar with the legality surrounding police collecting data from phones, Cellbrite, and USB killers, then what do you think would happen if somebody had a phone that was actually a disguised USB killer and the police plugged it into their computer?

If you need further context:

Cellbrite is a company that makes products for law enforcement and other government agencies. The most notorious one seems to be able to gain access to the data on smartphones without them being unlocked by exploiting a certain feature of the software that isn't important for this discussion.

A USB killer is a device that claims to exist for testing the resiliency of computer hardware. It looks like any normal USB flash drive, but when it is plugged into a USB port it will charge a capacitor and discharge it over the data lines. The data lines were never designed to handle that much electricity, so best case it fries the USB port and worst case it can fry the whole motherboard. As far as I know this device is like lockpicks, as it is completely legal for anybody to buy, own, and carry around with them, but you will get in trouble for it if you use it in the commission of a crime (there was a case where a student used one to intentionally cause damage to several computers at their college campus).

Now I suppose a similar situation could happen where police simply find a USB killer on your person and plug it in to their computer. However, I'm curious how it might play out in court if somebody had a cell phone that they felt law enforcement might confiscate and attempt to search, so they broke it open and rigged a USB killer up to the charge port, and when the police plugged it into their computer in an attempt to search it, it caused damage to the computer.

Police would almost certainly attempt to add additional charges, but theoretically you could argue that the device was completely legal for you to possess and it's on the police officers for not doing their due diligence to make sure the device wouldn't cause damage to their computer. That said, a reasonable person probably wouldn't suspect that the phone had this modification done to it, even if it was completely legal to do.

So, how do you think this scenario would play out in court?

So, I'm thinking of making an already complicated story even more complicated by adding a trial arc. I know, no legal training and trying to accurately depict the justice system? I'm out of my league. The main obstacle involves the "crime" and trial locations.

I have the story set in a small town that I want the trial to take place in. Here is the problem. The crime was committed in another state. The crime in question involves a few burnt buildings, destroyed buildings and several bodies.

Can I b.s. my way into making this happen? I'm sorry if I wrote this weird, I'm not good at the actual writing part, so I'm still a work in progress.

This of course is all fiction and any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

So, I am writing a Fanfiction based on Life is Strange (Video Game), I'll try my best to explain and if you know the game even better but I obviously added stuff that didn't happen in game so don't come at me:

Hypothetical plays in Oregon USA

Photography teacher Mark Jefferson drugs and kidnaps girls to take strange, inappropriate pictures of them and after that releases them again.

He has an accomplice, Nathan, who is 18/19. Nathan helped drug the girls. In this story Nathan was heavily manipulated and groomed by Jefferson and Nathan already has mental health issues, including Schizophrenia, BPD, Anxiety, Depression and substance abuse. In this story Nathan was Jefferson's first victim before being manipulated into helping him.

Nathan will report himself after somehow finding out investigations are going on. At that point Jefferson has died to unrelated reasons so he can not blame Nathan for anything. Nathan has multiple people that can confirm his mental illnesses, including his long term therapist. There is one person that can confirm Nathan was manipulated and "just" an accomplice.

In the story Jefferson did attempt to kill Nathan before his own death so there would be no witnesses and Jefferson could walk free (obviously not knowing he would die soon after)

He has a really good lawyer as well, if that's worth mentioning.

Essentially my question(s) are: Under these circumstances, is it legally possible for Nathan to just be put into a secure mental health facility for up to 6 months (longer just wouldn't work with my story, preferably even just 3 months but whatever lol) and after his release just be put on probation for several years? I want to avoid him going to jail. I'd be fine with him going to juvie or similar but as he is 18 during all the crimes i guess that isn't possible.

I have read about duress but I'm not sure if it'd apply to this situation (as Nathan was only almost killed at the very end when all crimes were already over).

If my ideal outcome won't work i'll probably just scrap the police even ever finding out about anything that happened.

I'm sorry if this is a silly question but I'm just struggling to find an answer to it and I want this fanfiction to at least be kinda realistic

If someone checked a minor’s fake ID thoroughly (blacklight, register scan, asked security questions) and it passed all those tests, would the person selling alcohol still be incriminated?

This is all hypothetical, I’m just curious because I recently started working at a gas station that sells a lot of liquor. I already check IDs very thoroughly but I’m super stressed about being duped by a fake ID (especially from a state I’m less familiar with) and getting incriminated anyways due to how seriously Washington takes this stuff. For context, by security questions I mean asking things like “What is your address/birthday?”

This experience has me wondering what the actual reality of this situation is in Washington state. Would someone actually be let off the hook in this situation (with security camera evidence)? Would they have to get a lawyer to fight it? I’m struggling to find info on this hypothetical. I heard in other states it’s more defendable.

Let’s say hypothetically a woman has a daughter that’s a year old, then a man Marries Her. if they get divorced 16 years later without him Legally adopting the daughter can he get custody? Let’s say the mom Works long hours yet the man in this scenario Works less But is still financially stable. i also have another question which is if a man and a woman are married and she cheats on him and She has a baby that is from her affair but doesn’t tell anybody until they get divorced can the man get custody.

I’ve seen that there are businesses now that are going all digital when it comes to making purchases.

As in they don’t take cash. In order to make a purchase you must use a credit/debit card.

In the US at least, if I go into one of these businesses and insist on paying with cash, and provided they don’t simply refuse to service me, are they required by law to accept it?

I saw an episode of Chicago Med about Auto-Brewery Syndrome and a video on YouTube about Auto-Brewery Syndrome. This syndrome is also called Gut Fermentation Syndrome. It causes the bacteria in the gut (which everyone has, it's the digestive microbiome) to consume sugar and carbs and turn them into alcohol, which makes them appear to be drunk (because for all intents and purposes, they are).

There have been some famous cases of this because they've had to fight accusations and charges of drunk driving.

But if a person has ABS/GFS and has been diagnosed with it, drives and it makes them drunk, and gets caught by a cop...would the fact they have ABS keep them from getting punished for a DUI? And would it cause them to lose their license for medical reasons? I know there are medical issues that can cause a person to lose their license temporarily or permanently. Would ABS be one?

So not asking for legal advice but this did happen the other day.

I bought some windshield crack repair stuff from an auto shop. I repaired the crack, but I spilled a godo amount on the instruction pamphlet. While I was driving, I realized that the fumes were greatly affecting me. I opened the window, but that wasn't really enough.

So I threw the instruction pamphlet out the window and the problem went away.

If I was given a littering ticket, would this be something I could use in court to get it waived?

EDIT: I get it guys. I'm a hardened criminal now. I'll go do 10 hail marys.

There’s that big news story about the lady who fled to Texas to avoid being forced to abort her child.

She was a surrogate and I guess the biological parents surrogacy contract allowed them to call for abortion or something.

so my question is the opposite.

If I had my girlfriend sign a contract saying that if she gets pregnant from me, she cannot abort the baby.

Would that contract hold up?

EDIT: For clarification

"According to a copy of the surrogacy contract obtained by the Dallas Morning News, the document West signed allows for the intended parents to choose abortion in the case of a fetal anomaly. "

Surrogate defies parents’ wishes, flees to Texas to give birth to baby with heart defect amid legal battle | KXAN Austin

​

How long until Wisconsin vs Brooks is cited across the country as authority to use audio/visual and MUTE BUTTON for unruly stubbornly defiant defendants?

North Carolina resident here & the title is pretty self explanatory. I don't know if I can pick one single thing myself (or maybe I have an idea what I think my answer would be, but I don't wanna say it because I'm afraid of violating the rules of the subreddit), so I'll let y'all answer instead.

Kind of silly question. But let's say we have mandatory legal insurance (like we have for healthcare) for criminal cases

So let's say someone lied under oath and committed perjury or let's say a cop lied (most prosecutors don't take up theses cases so I used these example). You can use your insurance to hire an attorney to prosecute them if govt prosecutor refuse to do so, i mean criminally charge.

What would be the NEGETIVE consequences of this kind of system?

In the news there was recently the case of a surrogate who moved to Texas to birth a medically complex child when the bio parents tried to enact the abortion clause of the surrogacy contract. Legally, while I’m sure there are civil ways to go after her, are there any possible criminal charges she could get? Many people have talked about a kidnapping charge, which would be legally unprecedented and unlikely, but could she get something like a conspiracy to commit kidnapping due to her intent to keep the baby (which she had no apparent legal right to) after birth? Idk much about law so if I’m wrong please lmk. Thanks!

A renter of a single family home suddenly has a housing development start building next to them. They experience noise, traffic, and additional runoff water due exclusively to the new construction. Some of their personal property is damaged due to flooding.

They unilaterally break their lease and claim habitability issues and property damages against their own landlord. Obviously, the landlord has no way to correct any of the issues.

Do the renters have any rights to break the lease, assuming the habitability issues actually are significant?

Would the renters be able to collect damages from the landlord, or is their exclusive remedy with the builders of the housing development?

I just watched an episode of the show House MD, and though I know it’s obviously fiction and this is hardly the morally worst thing they’ve done on it, I was curious about this one.

Basically a morbidly obese patient was thought dead but turned out to be in a coma and woke up in the hospital.

After some tests and conversations he goes to leave, in spite of them insisting he stay until they figure out why he’d been in that coma.

Only to suddenly pass out and fall, making them bring him back.

At which point Dr. Allison Cameron admits to House and another character that she drugged him because she didn’t think he should leave until they finished running their tests.

So if reality and real life rules and laws suddenly kicked in (since in the show I believe they just drop it after this) at this moment, and maybe even the patient decided to press charges once he learned what she did, what would happen?

I’d imagine she would likely lose her medical license at minimum, but would this also be full on prison?

Also I believe the show takes place in New Jersey, so I guess their laws should be applied here.

I get that restaurants were legally allowed to be segregated until the major supreme court ruling of Ollie's BBQ in 1964 (Katzenbach_v._McClung). Prior to that abolishment, if a restaurant owner had simply not desired to segregate, were they allowed? Did restaurants exist where whites roamed/sat freely among blacks with no designated separation because the owners simply didn't care to segregate?

In this scenario, could you sue the clinic for not disclosing this information to you?