AMA anything about anything law-related. I'm taking the

>>739769764
Settle any ongoing political law argument you want ITT related to the russia-trump case

>>739769764
According to Canadian law is it ok for a defence lawyer to be promoted to crown prosecutor in the same criminal trial
Federal case

>>739769764
if the president is convicted of a criminal offense, can he pardon himself?

>>739770061
It's not illegal in the US, but every state is governed by ethics rules. You have to have a license to practice in any given state. If you violate the rules you can't practice.

Every state's ethics rules forbid representing interests against a current or former client because

1. Your current/former client have you confidential information that you will inevitable use against their interest
2. You can't be loyal to two conflicting interests.

You can get consent from the former/current client if its not in the same case, but that's probably not going to happen.

Also, it's absolutely prohibited for a prosecutor to join the defense team on the same case. A defense lawyer joining the prosecution is subject to the rules stated above.

>>739770585
This rule does not exist in Canada
We must seem very backwards to you
Thank you for your time

>>739770326
Almost certainly not, but it would take years to sort it out if he did. Theres plenty of shit that the constitution doesn't talk about since its such a small document, so we have to rely on lots of other shit to see what they meant when they said the president has the power to pardon. We think its because they understood that criminal prosecutions at the time were so harsh, the president could act as a mitigating influence. However, it's a fundamental tenant of English (and subsequently US) law that no one can be a judge in his own case. The president pardoning himself would be exactly that.

A nigger jumps me in NYC, 2 other friends of mine show up as it is happening and help me.
Cops sees bunch of white people beating up nigger.
Hate crime?

>>739769764
if a cop kills an unarmed civilian but claims they felt threatened, is it possible to convict them?

What do you want to specialize in?

>>739769764
What can/should a man do to avoid the possibility of being screwed in family court?

File: jeffsessions.jpg (10KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x275px

>>739770878
It would be pretty unspeakable in the US for a defense lawyer to be hired as a US attorney while defending in a federal criminal case. But the Justice Department is run by this dipshit, so who knowns what could happen

>>739771357
Depends on the evidence. If it's true you have the word of 3 against 1. Self-defense applies to defending others. If they find out you post on 4chan it wouldn't help...

>>739771588
Police are held to a close standard as any other person exercising self-defense. The standard for self defense is a reasonable expectation of imminent physical harm. Cops are given a lot of leeway because it is much more reasonable for them to expect to be harmed than ordinary civilians. They are also given a lot of deference (i.e. - "He's a well-trained (lol) peace officer and knows better than us humble law folk to know when he's in harm's way"). It's possible and happens once in a while, but cops usually get away with it

>>739771649
Employment law on plaintiff's side. It pays really well and its too sleazy if you dont get into labor law (unions). Plus, there's some satisfaction is helping people in their jobs. For a lot of people its their "vocation" - their reason for living, what they actually give to the world. It's nice when people appreciate your work.

>>739772376
Sweet. I'm working towards a PhD in forensic entomology, so I'm looking forward to testifying as an expert witness.

Cross examination sounds a bit scary though.

>>739771902
How much does someone's word actually matter in cases like this? If a cop sees 5 fighting 1 guy, and all 5 claim the first guy tried to rob them, in the absence of any other evidence, what happens?

>>739771726
Be reasonable. Don't be petty. Get your own lawyer and be willing to negotiate. Deals are almost always better than having to litigate it (lawyers are expensive and litigation eats up billable hours).

Also, if there's kids involved try to think about think for the sake of being able to sleep at night...

>>739769764
What's your opinion on the legal system in general? What works well and what doesn't?

>>739772503
Requirements for an expert witness are

1. Qualification
2. Belief to a reasonable certainty
3. Proper basis in fact (based on personal knowledge of the facts, evidence presented, or reliable review of inadmissible evidence)
4. Relying on reliable principles reasonably applies.

They'll grill you to shit on all of those four, then ask you how much you were paid, whether your direct told you what to say. If you're honest in your approach it wont be a problem.

The problem comes up in criminal trials when the defense has the discretion to impeach you by asking you about prior untrustworthy things you've done or been convicted of - basically anything to convince the jury youre a liar

>>739773215
That makes sense.

Daubert vs. Dow Pharmaceuticals has been making a huge impact on all of the forensic fields too. Pretty much every forensic student I know is doing their homework, even though we're in a Frye state.

It's kinda cool to watch the paradigm shift happen, my major professor used to talk about how the ballistics experts used to just be older cops with lots of hobby firearm experience. That's not enough to fly now.

>>739773215
How does that impeachment process work? Does the defense have to dig up dirt on the expert witness and then ask about it, or does the witness need to try to list every untrustworthy thing they've done under penalty of perjury?

>>739772504
Well self defense has to be proportional to the threat. You can meet deadly force with deadly force. You can't meet the threat of minor bodily injury with deadly force.

Deadly force includes any force that could cause substantial bodily harm. Coming at someone swinging a 2x4 is deadly force. When Tryvon Martin got killed he was bashing that dudes head against the concrete - deadly force met with deadly force. If your friends came and helped you, extinguished the threat, then continued to beat the shit out of the guy, they would be criminally liable even if the jury believed everything they said regarding the jumping and defense.

I'm not that familiar with the elements of hate crimes, but I'd imagine most prosecutors would rather charge the base offense rather than have to prove the mental state required to prove the "hate" element.

>>739772687
The criminal justice system is fundamentally fucked, especially with regard to drug charges. You can get arrested for a pretty small amount of a controlled substances, but a handful of other laws can add up to make the mandatory minimum absolutely ridiculous.

For example, say you get busted for carrying .001g over the mandatory minimum of 5 years for possession of heroin (these numbers are off the top of my head, but the application is true). But, you get another 10 years because you were within so many miles of a school zone (which is impossible not to be in an inner city). On top of that you get another 10 years because you are a felon in possession of a firearm. On top of that you get another 10 years because the police have evidence that it was related to gang activity. Due to your priors, all those points that exacerbate the crime have you looking at a potential life sentnce.

So the prosecutor comes to you and says "We can charge you with all of this and put you in jail for life, or you can plead guilty and agree to 10 years." Your public defender advises you to do it because it would be unethical for him not to.

So you get 10 years without trial for carrying a few grams. Everyone pleas without the right to a trial by jury. Trials are rare these days.

Are those cock tribute threads that are very present on a daily basis on this board legal?

>>739773729
Evidence to impeach a witness has to bear on the truthfulness of the witness. The opposing party can introduce:

1. Prior conviction for a felony - The judge has discretion to exclude if he thinks it will be substantially more prejudicial than probative of untrustworthiness. Usually felonies older than 10 years from conviction or release from jail are too prejudicial.
2. Prior conviction of misdemeanor regarding truthfulness (perjury, tax evasion, etc.)
3. Evidence of non-conviction acts of misconduct bearing on truthfulness - pretty strict rules hear. They can ask about it on cross examination. If you deny it they cant introduce evidence that you did it. Also: bearing on truthfulness - this doesn't include cheating on your spouse because that would be overly prejudicial (judge's discretion)
4. Opinion/reputation for truthfulness - they can call in other witnesses to call you a believed/regarded liar

The point is that it has to impeach your credibility as a truthful witness, not a person.

>>739774476
What exactly makes plea deals constitutional? They seem contradictory to the 6th amendment.

>>739774937
There was a Supreme Court case where a radio station got into trouble for airing George Carlin's "7 dirty words you can't say" bit. The entire debate was over obscenity and the right to free speech. The court had previously held that obscenity may be prohibited, but must be allowed in private. The problem with the radio station was that the radio broadcast was actually "invading" people's homes and "forcing" them to hear it. That wasn't alright with the court, so they held that obscene material must be invited into the home, rather than suffered. The internet solved this problem with the "Are you over 18" buttons. If you click it you basically consent to whatever you see.

>>739775722
So basically, yes they are legal because it is a form of free speech? Even if the photos are being used without consent?

>>739775483
8th Amendment is protection against cruel and unusual punishment, so it doesn't really come into play. The 6th Amendment is the right to trial by jury of your peers. The judge has to accept the plea before he can enter judgment. Before he enters judgment he has to say a bunch of things on the record to the defendant. He has to tell him that he has a right to trial by jury, he has to tell him the nature of the charges and minimum and maximum sentences, and he has to tell him that he has a right to negotiate. If the defendant acknowledges, the judge has discretion whether or not to enter the plea judgement. Most judge's dockets are full as fuck, not unless its unconscionably harsh, they're going to allow it. That satisfies the constitution well enough for the Supreme Court apparently.

Plus, NOT allowing defendant's to plead guilty would run into a host of other Constitutional problems. Every right comes with the right to not exercise it. Telling people they can't plead guilty would be like telling people they have to express themselves because of the first amendment

What's a good law research site or resource?

>>739769764
What was the price of your education? What do you expect your salary to look like after you finish the bar?

>>739775940

1. it's probably not speech, b/c it's obscene
2. states can regulate/ban distribution of obscene material. some do, some don't
3. but there is almost zero prosecution of obscenity as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. there are rare exceptions tho (e.g., "extreme" porn)
4. consent to *receive* pornography has nothing at all to do w/ prosecution for *distribution* of obscenity. lack of consent to distribute pornography may be separately crime/tort, but consent does no work in the obscenity analysis
5. possession of most obscene material is constitutionally protected, with a few exceptions (e.g., child pornography)

>>739775940
I guess I wasn't sure what you meant. I was thinking about the "rate my cock" threads. Are tribute threads the ones where people cum on pictures of random girls?

If so, it's legal because there's no law preventing it...

Stupid joke that illustrates the point:

In the US, everything is legal, unless the government says you can't do it.
In the Soviet Union, everything is illegal unless the government says you can.

>>739772376

The plaintiffs' bar in employment cases is mostly shitdicks. There are a few at the top who get the real cases, everyone else represents psychos who claim bullshit after they get fired for being incompetent psychos. 90% of employment cases are pure shit and its a volume business for you, so I hope you love the taste.

Source: employment defense lawyer

>>739769764

Company A, Corporation organized in Delaware and with its main office in Atlanta operates a plant on the border between Georgia and Alabama. It has employees in both states and ships its products around the world. It discharges an environmentally harmful chemical into streams and rivers in Georgia which run into Alabama.

Alabama residents down stream of the discharge sue in Alabama Circuit court (Local Jury Trial Jurisdiction) under the Protect our Rivers Act, a law in the state of Alabama providing for damages and injunctive relief. They also file common law claims or nuisance, trespass, and outrage. The waterways in question are seasonal and not considered navigable.

The Protect our Rivers act directly follows the dictates of EPA regulations for duty, breach and causative purposes, but provides for different remedies. The Alabama law permits damages of $1MM and affirmative injunctions. The EPA damage limits are $1000 per proven incident, now matter how long the incident lasts. Plaintiffs cannot ascertain how many incidents have occurred, but believe discovery will disclose 100s.

Some of the employees of Company A, who reside in Alabama, are Plaintiffs.

Company A files a federal removal request in the appropriate district Court, but the state Court refuses to stay proceedings. The District Court orders proceedings stayed and grants removal. Plaintiffs appeal this ruling and request a mandamus from 11th circuit to dismiss removal filing and lift stay on state proceeding.

Defendant's have plead an affirmative defense of pre-emption and contributory negligence.

NOW:
1) Should Mandamus be granted?
2) If not, Assuming the Plaintiffs can successfully meet their burden of duty, breach, and cause, what are the limitations on damages?
3) Alabama Law provides a defense that prevents employees for suing employers in tort for damages related to their employment activities or the reasonably foreseeable consequences of those activities, what result?

>>739776251
https://www.law.cornell.edu/

West Law and Lexis Advance are used by firms, but that's mainly because they have pretty advanced search systems to do research quickly. They're pretty expensive, though.

>>739776702
It's very rare that tribute threads feature cumshots, it's mostly just guys laying their cocks over pictures of random girls. So I'm going to need some ELI5 here so please bear with me. The following scenario :
Guy has crush on Girl. Guy posts girls photo without her permission in a tribute thread. Guy2 tributes it so Guy sends it to Girl. Girl goes to the police. Can anything happen to either Guy1 or Guy2?

>>739776646
Are there any crimes other than child molestation where it is also illegal to possess video or photographic evidence of said crime?

>>739772503

Nobody ever needs a forensic entomologist. If they do need you, the cross is like patty cake. You're so fucking specialized that you nobody can fuck with you, but you'll never get work as a legal expert.

>>739769764
I have been married for 18 years. My wife just plain does not love me any longer. She barely interacts with me at all; no sex in a year. I have been trying to endure it for the sake of not winding up a poorfag, but I just can't do it anymore. Is there anything at all I can do to prevent a divorce from ruining me financially? My income is literally 5 times higher than hers.

>>739769764
I have a term paper due on Monday at noon.
When should I begin researching and writing it?

I also have a two chapter test due at that same time, so I will have to find time to read that.

>>739772504

The jury can do whatever the fuck it wants. 5 v 1 doesn't mean a thing. Credibility determinations are made by the jury, so their verdict will stand. That kind of case probably turns on race

>>739777116
now that i think about it, no, not to my knowledge. cp is pretty unique in that regard. i could be wrong though.

>>739777228
State matters, A LOT
(Not OP)

>>739769764
Hey, Lawyerfag. I make movies and shit. What's the easiest way to getting away with filming in public, like, the streets of Philadelphia/ Center City. I've contacted the building I wanna film in front of, got no response. And I don't wanna put out 3000 bucks for a film permit. Wat do? It's a smallish production, just me, four guys, and two actors.

>>739776508
Tuition at my school is about $48k / year for 3 years (yes, seriously). I got a scholarship my first year so I'm about $100k in student loans. Loans are delayed for 6 months after graduation and the monthly payments are pretty flexible. I'll pay 15% monthly income starting in November (which is when Bar results will come out...) and I can change that to different flat rates whenever I want. I figure I'll be paying them off for quite a while, but 100k over 20 years isn't much when lifetime income has been increased by a few million.

1st year associates at decent firms make 60-80k a year. If I make anywhere near that I could pay a bit to the student loans every month and still live pretty damn comfortably.

>>739776911
You should consider burning Alabama to the ground.
Then there won't be anyone left to bitch about the polluted river, and the rest of the country will be too busy celebrating to be upset.

>>739773215
>>739773701

Y'all have no clue what you're talking about.

>>739777360
Wisconsin

>>739777371
Just shoot it and run.
You need a fucking permit to turn a camera on?
What fuckhole state do you live n?

I was charged with dealing weed for the second time. first case was dismissed and sealed. what are my chances of coming out scot free again?

>>739776911
Let me answer the incoming questions then I'll look at this one

>>739769764
In my state breaks aren't mentioned anywhere. If I work a 12 hour shift can they legally keep me from a lunch/dinner break? I can't seem to find anything about breaks state or federal wise

Can the president pardon himself?

>>739773729

That other shitdick is an idiot. It just depends on the case. For a big case, the other side does oppo research and tries to dig up dirt on the expert. For a standard case, the expert just gets googled an then your opinion gets attacked. If you fucked up then they'll crush you, if you did a good job then its cake

>>739777312
11 pm on Sunday sounds like a good time to start.
Just make sure to keep /b/ open while you're working to keep the ideas flowing.

>>739777832
Just Bullshitting you with the stuff I always expect for some shitty ass bar commissioner to test you on. I promise you, the fact pattern is intentionally vague on necessary information to see if you will pick up what you need to know to answer one of the questions, but they never tell you which one is the "real" question.

>>739777813
0%
i don't even need to be a lawyer to know that

>>739774937

Yes, you have a constitutional right to post a picture of your dick on 4chan. Literally.

>>739777792
>Philadelphia

>>739777695
Again, not OP
Sorry, don't know shit about Wisconsin Domestic Law. Where I am, you'd probably be fine, about 5 yrs of alimony, reasonably calculated based upon local living standards, not what you can "afford". You probably wouldn't like the property division much, but at 5x salary you'll recover.

>>739776190

A judge's caseload has nothing to do with how they handles pleas. Period. Also free speech doesn't have jack shit to do with this. Everything else in this post is pretty close.

>>739777063
I can't think of anything criminal off the top of my head, but like I said, its not illegal unless something makes it illegal. I wouldn't doubt that a few states have passed broad laws that target that kind of sexual stalking.

If the girl knew Guy1's identity there could be a civil for intentional infliction of emotional distress: obscene or outrageous conduct (something not permitted in a civil society) directed at the plaintiff that causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress. Damages there would be pain and suffering plus some big time punitive damages.
Definitely not a first amendment issue...

>>739769764
OP, you have my congratulations on general competence. I've been a general practice attorney for two years now and your answers are pretty solid.

File: IMG_0002.png (122KB, 329x291px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 329x291px

>>739777919
Related: IF the president orders the joint chiefs to launch nukes in a situation he does not understand, AND since they have already come to the decided that they will not obey the command to go nuclear under this unstable president, THEN does that constitute a military coup, with the military pursuing its own interpretation of foreign policy?

That's the big question, since max time to NK having nukes on rockets is 20mo's, and China's not going to intervene by they don't want china-nk relations destabilized on their border.

It's ok, no one in strategy knows the ramifications of all this either.

>>739769764
What obscure laws do you think people in this thread are most likely to break unintentionally?

>>739776508

I have 170k of law school debt. I made ~220k my first year at a private firm, after two years working for a judge making 60-70k.

>>739778586
Does Guy2 have plausible deniability or something of the sort?

>>739777116
Possession alone no, but if you have video of something illegal because aided or encouraged it you are complicit in the crime itself. At that point the video becomes evidence. Aiding and encouraging might also including paying the person or conspiracy or persons that did/recorded the crime.

>>739778634
Why wouldn't we just nuke NK?

>>739777063

Guy2 is free and clear.

Guy1 is a scumbag. Stalking, harassment, and sexual harassment are all on the table. Depends on jurisdiction

>>739769764
How much of your job is exercising your own judgement, finding silver linings to spin, and creative arguments to make citing precedent, vs how much of your job is just knowing the law, what is legal and what isn't, and simply finding the parts that neatly fit in to the black & white holes and figuring out standard penalties and billing for it.

>>739779123
There's nothing a determined prosecutor could stick Guy2 with?

>>739777228
>>739777360 is right.
I know California law, which is community property. Most of the West/Southwest states are community property. Any income you made during the marriage is 50% her's. Anything you bought with that income is 50% hers. If the income comes from property you owned before marriage it's yours. That's pretty much all I can say.

The other big consideration is support. If she never worked, but stayed at home "keeping the house" the courts basically treat it like she was sacrificing her vocational development to maintain the family. In that case you'll owe alimony for a fixed period of time based on how long it would theoretically take her to develop employment skills and proportional to your standard of living during marriage.

>>739777228

Depends on a lot of shit, sorry bro. Hire the best divorce lawyer you can find, it will be money well spent.

>>739777355
Joe looks out the window and sees Fred with a knife in his hand, yelling at Mark. Joe starts recording Fred and Mark on his phone. Fred then stabs Mark, killing him. Joe doesn't know Fred or Mark, and neither one of them know him. They also don't know Joe was recording the murder.

If Joe never tells anybody about the recording and never shows it to anybody, has Joe done anything illegal?

>>739777371
You can film in front of it. There's nothing they can do to stop you, but there's nothing to stop them from having a security guard fuck up all of your shots.

>>739777514

What state? That first year associate salary sucks.

>>739769764
Ok, let's say you're arrested for jerking it in a Walmart parking lot. Two witnesses, but no video. How do you defend?

>>739777813
Not great. It kind of depends on whether you got away the first time because they were lenient or you had a clever PD. But nobody likes repeat offenders...

>>739777813

Good chance of no jail time. Not getting this one sealed though. Depends on quantity.

>>739777919

Not from impeachment, which is the only thing that matters. President probably can't be charged with a regular crime while in office.

>>739777832
The California Supreme Court recently held that the Bar commission was intentionally designing the tests to prevent new lawyers from entering the field and ordered that the test be set at a difficulty closer to other states.

Unfortunately that doesn't go into effect until the Feb. 2018 Bar. But hey, if I fail this one at least the next one will be easy as fuck.

>>739778926
Way too risky. We have a birds nest of treaties, and can't just irradiate our allies downwind, plus the geopolitical ramifications of dumping the resulting refugee crisis into china would ultimately be fucking disasterous for us. Not to mention the risk of it setting off a string of instant retaliatory attacks between our allies and their enemies. All made worse by our intelligence commipunities concern, that we only know what they have based on what's observable from above. Thanks to defectors, the world does know they tunnel deep, and love redundancy, so all we do know is that we have no way of knowing, once we destroy the known locations, how many others might spring into action. It's a mess.

>>739777890
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/breaks

My buddy had an outstanding warrant for a probation violation back in 2014. He was with some friends and got pulled over. He figured he was a passenger with nothing on him, so he refused to identify himself. The police told him that if he didn't give them his name they would arrest him for obstruct and delay. He caved and gave them his name. Do you have to identify yourself? We live in Idaho

>>739769764
whats the cali bar like? i sat for the malaysian bar, but because im not a muslim i failed, now im doing Queensland bar to by pass malaysian bar.

>>739778679

Everyone breaks federal law every time they share a Netflix password or uses someone else's. Posting "revenge porn" ie others' nudes without consent is illegal in a lot of states.

>>739769764
I have a cunt.

>>739779303

You can jack off onto any picture you want and nobody can stop you (unless you're making CP).

>>739779266

Depends on the practice. For the most part, lawyers don't need to know the law, they just look it up.

>>739780397
Even if it's a copyrighted image and you don't own a license? Is jacking off onto a picture considered fair use?

>>739769764
Based on what's already known about Trump, what's the best he could hope for, and the worst that he could get?

>>739779514
Claim addiction to sex.

>>739779417

No. If the police ask you, you can't lie or conceal evidence. If nobody asks, then Joe is good to go.

There is no duty to act.

>>739779123
>>739779303

Not OP, but a determined prosecutor can bring criminal charges against pretty much anyone if he doesn't care about actually winning the case. In this particular hypothetical, depending on jurisdiction, he can go after guy 2 as an accessory or co-conspirator to stalking/harassment/whatever guy 1 is charged with.

>>739779514

Plead it, you're going to lose.

>>739778157
>>739779621
>>739779632

I retained a lawyer who was pretty well known in the county in terms of experience and his background as a top assistant district attorney a few years back. cops picked up 4 ozs and we managed to get the charge lowered from felony to misdemeanor weight. options are currently 1 day in jail, 300 something hours of community service, or do a pretrial intervention again which would take around 8 months but would leave me with more dismissed charges. do dismissed charges affect employment when you apply to get any form of state license? i know i can technically say i was not convicted for any crime which is legally true but im not sure how to proceed.

>>739779873

Go to /pol/ with that shit, this has nothing to do with the thread

>>739780715
Do the cops have to ask Joe specifically? Or if the cops put out a general press release - "anyone with information on the murder of Mark is asked to call the tips line" - does that count as asking Joe?

>>739779942

Yes you have to identify yourself and present ID if you have it on you. All states.

>>739779942
Police can stop and detain you with reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime (Terry Stop, sometimes referred to as the "stop and frisk"). Some states have passed laws expressly granting the authority to demand identification. The Supreme Court said this doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Looks like Idaho doesn't have such a statute as of 2013. Your bud got bamboozled.

>>739780780
If that were to ever happen, in your professional opinion how likely would it be for the prosecutor to win the case against guy 2?

>>739780041

California bar is a pretty fucking hard, one of the worst in the US.

>>739780571

You're not going to make any money trying to sell a picture of you jacking off onto a picture of Minnie Mouse, so fair use doesn't apply. But it'd probably be fair use, yeah.

>>739780715
I thought you were not required to answer police questions, with a few exceptions in specific circumstances like providing your name when detained. If the police ask you about a crime you witnessed but otherwise were not involved in, are you legally required to give them the information you have?

>>739780694

Impeachment is his only concern - you can't prosecute a president for normal shit.

Because that's a political decision by congress, he is good to go until the Republitards cut him loose.

>>739780805

Go for the diversion program if you are going to live straight from now on. Lots of jobs ask about charges, which would still include this, but for jobs and background checks that only look at convictions, you'd be on good shape.

If you're going to keep dealing, take the day. 300 hours is a lot of picking up trash for free.

>>739780952

The cops have to ask him specifically. Even then, he could legally refuse to answer. You don't have to tell cops a damn thing, but if you do talk, you can't lie.

>>739781298
Why does it matter if I make money or not? I'm not allowed to watch a copyrighted movie in my own home unless I pay for permission. I doubt watching that same movie without paying suddenly becomes legal if I jack off on the tv.

>>739782003
Cool, thanks for the answers!

>>739781090

You're an idiot. Terry stops and stop-and-frisk are totally different, and idaho's lack of a statute wouldn't get that guy off the hook.

>>739781096

There's no case against Guy2, and the prosecutor could get tagged for malicious prosecution. That assumes the two dudes don't know each other and guy2 doesn't know the girl, but is just some anonymous internet masturbator. If he knows her, it might be different. Depends on facts.

>>739781341

No. My first post was imprecisely worded. You don't have to say shit to the cops. But if you do talk, you can't lie.

>>739782169
I said they were sometimes referred to as stop and frisk, not that they are equivalent. Stop and frisk is a comparable concept that a layman would be more familiar with to help the guy understand the concept of Terry stop.

Also, this nitpicking is getting lame.

>>739782364
That sums it up. Thank you.

>>739782023

You're talking about two different things. Pirating a movie is illegal. Jacking off on pictures of 18 year olds isn't.

If you buy a Minnie Mouse statue, you can take pictures while you jack off on it and give away the pictures. If you try to sell the pictures, you might be violating a copyright, but you could argue fair use, you're making an artistic statement, blah blah. If you stole the statue, you re still guilty of stealing.

>>739769764
can a consumer focused cloud based encryption service get a mass market exemption for an export license?

>>739782625

If you don't like nitpicking, you are going to be a shitty lawyer. Have fun failing the bar, asswipe.

>>739782904

What the fuck are you saying, this is gibberish

>>739782823
But unless you specifically have purchased a license to use the random porn pic you found on the internet, my understanding is that this is equivalent to watching a movie without paying from a copyright perspective. Unless specifically released to the public domain, the original photographer reserves all rights to the image. But I'm not a lawyer, so hopefully one of the lawfags can chime in.

>>739783150
the united states has export restrictions on cryptography. It recently loosened those rules to allow for mass market exemptions. I was asking if a product specifically focused on information security and is focused for a mass market audience can get a mass marker exemption.

>>739783233

Your understanding is wrong. If you post a picture of yourself on the internet, and it isn't then being used for commercial gain, you have no rights over what happens to that picture. That's how people end up becoming memes.

>>739782962
I expect people that nitpick me to have basic reading comprehension skills.

But hey, go back and read my post and tell me where I said Idaho's lack of a statute would help his friend, or that its absence would mean the arrest was unlawful.