If it was you what will you do
Answers:
i hate the line, but why not just say no?
"oh, but you don't know what it's like." actually, i do know what it's like. i grew up in drug-culture america. it was my generation (sorry) that popularized drug use in america. i've been exposed to it in one capacity or another my whole adult life.
.
quit buying them and stay away from the friends that use them..its your buds that get you to do them...
If someone wants to stop something, then he or she will stop it. It boils down to will power.
i will sing songs to forget abt drug
Yes I want to stop it to taking the drugs because it is not good for our health and also our brain and I think go to drug rehabilitations for the undergo the therapies about also a psychological problems on base in their bad experiences in their lives and also to prayed for giving a second change in their lives and I believe that prayer was healing of our wounded in our hearts but also to overcome of their problems of their lives.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
If you're due in court and your lawyer doesn't show up, what happens?
Do they give you another date or go on with the proceedings anyway?
Answers:
It would probably depend on the type of infraction, the reason you are in court that day and the judge presiding.
If you are just pleading guilty/not guilty, you may be required to enter a plea, but generally the judge will set another date after waiting a few minutes.
Do you plan on preventing your lawyer from showing up, or is there a reason you don't think they will?
It depends on the circumstances and also how unfair it will be to the other party. If your lawyer has an excuse the judge may accept it, or may still decide to continue with the hearing. In some cases, the judge may actually issue a direction forcing the lawyer to turn up or their representative.
If the circumstances are extremely unfair to the other party - for example, they have prepared for the hearing today and then it turns out you can't proceed, and thus causing them more delay, the judge can force you to continue. The most you can do then is sue your lawyer for breach of duty.
Usually, the Judge will ask if your Attorney is present. If not, they'll put your case aside and call the next case and you will wait all day in the corridor. At last call, the Judge will call you in and without representation will schedule you for another date. Not good though, he'll be ticked at your Lawyer.
You're screwed.
they re-schedule it.
In Canada it would be extremely rare to force a party to proceed without their lawyer. If there is no valid excuse or explanation for the lawyer's failure to appear the judge could impose cost sanctions against the lawyer, including paying the opposite party's legal expenses for attending court that day. The judge could also order the lawyer off the case. The party whose lawyer failed to appear ,is in the circumstances, an innocent victim of his lawyer's failure, and would not be punished by the judge.
Usually, you have the option of proceeding yourself, or asking the court for a continuance.
But the lawyer is going to get slapped by the court -- how hard depends on their reasons (or excuses) for failing to appear.
But most courts (most of the time) don't penalize the client the first time their attorney doesn't show up.
U.S. courts almost never proceed without a party's attorney present if the party is there and does not know why the attorney is not present. There are exceptions (it has hapenned before with the party and attorney or it is a minor and only procedural matter.
The attorney is screwed, by the way. He or she better have a good excuse for not attending a hearing.
It depends on the circumstances. I agree that if your lawyer does not show up when you are entering a plea, it is no serious matter. Most judges will have you enter a plea of "not guilty."
I have been in Section 341(a) hearings in Bankruptcy Court before a trustee, and in one occasion the trustee asked another attorney to help the alleged bankrupt, and in another circumstance the trustee led the person through the standard list of questions.
If your attorney does not show up for a trial, I would recommend asking for a recess until the attorney arrives. If he does not show up within a reasonable time, ask for a continuance.
Answers:
It would probably depend on the type of infraction, the reason you are in court that day and the judge presiding.
If you are just pleading guilty/not guilty, you may be required to enter a plea, but generally the judge will set another date after waiting a few minutes.
Do you plan on preventing your lawyer from showing up, or is there a reason you don't think they will?
It depends on the circumstances and also how unfair it will be to the other party. If your lawyer has an excuse the judge may accept it, or may still decide to continue with the hearing. In some cases, the judge may actually issue a direction forcing the lawyer to turn up or their representative.
If the circumstances are extremely unfair to the other party - for example, they have prepared for the hearing today and then it turns out you can't proceed, and thus causing them more delay, the judge can force you to continue. The most you can do then is sue your lawyer for breach of duty.
Usually, the Judge will ask if your Attorney is present. If not, they'll put your case aside and call the next case and you will wait all day in the corridor. At last call, the Judge will call you in and without representation will schedule you for another date. Not good though, he'll be ticked at your Lawyer.
You're screwed.
they re-schedule it.
In Canada it would be extremely rare to force a party to proceed without their lawyer. If there is no valid excuse or explanation for the lawyer's failure to appear the judge could impose cost sanctions against the lawyer, including paying the opposite party's legal expenses for attending court that day. The judge could also order the lawyer off the case. The party whose lawyer failed to appear ,is in the circumstances, an innocent victim of his lawyer's failure, and would not be punished by the judge.
Usually, you have the option of proceeding yourself, or asking the court for a continuance.
But the lawyer is going to get slapped by the court -- how hard depends on their reasons (or excuses) for failing to appear.
But most courts (most of the time) don't penalize the client the first time their attorney doesn't show up.
U.S. courts almost never proceed without a party's attorney present if the party is there and does not know why the attorney is not present. There are exceptions (it has hapenned before with the party and attorney or it is a minor and only procedural matter.
The attorney is screwed, by the way. He or she better have a good excuse for not attending a hearing.
It depends on the circumstances. I agree that if your lawyer does not show up when you are entering a plea, it is no serious matter. Most judges will have you enter a plea of "not guilty."
I have been in Section 341(a) hearings in Bankruptcy Court before a trustee, and in one occasion the trustee asked another attorney to help the alleged bankrupt, and in another circumstance the trustee led the person through the standard list of questions.
If your attorney does not show up for a trial, I would recommend asking for a recess until the attorney arrives. If he does not show up within a reasonable time, ask for a continuance.
If your x has threatened to kill you you have a restraining order do you have to go back to his st for custody
Answers:
I think you are asking about a hearing regarding custody of children you have together. If I am correct, contact the court conducting the hearing and explain the situation. They will advise you how the restraining order will affect the hearing. I'm certain there will be enough supervision in the court room to prevent him from doing anything, especially if the court is aware of the restraining order.
Not necessarily. If you contact the police and he's charged for violating the restraining order, the case will be tried in the county that it was committed in. Doesn't matter where the order was originally filed.
If your town had a pollicy of renting space to gangster rappers for stuidos would you expect the pd to do more
cause where I live if your mexican trying to get to work at 6.30 in the morning your gonna get harassed,but if you got some gold teeth and a car a cop could never afford,smokin a blunt wavin a 9 your good to go!! think I should move my family away from Vallejo Ca,
Answers:
Sure, But I would also expect the recording studios to pitch in some money for the extra police.. There the ones making the money and inviting the thugs to the area, there the ones that should pay for the extra protection to keep things under control.
and your question is?
i do not agree with these immigrant jumping over the border. Every one has their lifestyle let us recover from a faltering economy. I am all for the rappers on this one.
You are very closed minded. why can't we make music about what's really going on!!
Answers:
Sure, But I would also expect the recording studios to pitch in some money for the extra police.. There the ones making the money and inviting the thugs to the area, there the ones that should pay for the extra protection to keep things under control.
and your question is?
i do not agree with these immigrant jumping over the border. Every one has their lifestyle let us recover from a faltering economy. I am all for the rappers on this one.
You are very closed minded. why can't we make music about what's really going on!!
If your rights as an American were being taken away, would you do something about it?
Or would you sit back and let it happen because you believe that the Government knows best? If you want some info on the subject, go to zeitgiestmovie.com and watch the ENTIRE movie. If you have questions about religion, also watch the movie. Good luck to us all! Namaste.
Answers:
Under the present administration, the rights of all United states citizens are being taken away.
Last week the president signed into a law a bill that gives him the authorization to conduct wire taps, collect emails and the like on all citizens, even those with no known links to any foreign government or terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, the usual course of actions for most citizens is to complain but do nothing.
They can not be blamed fro such a lack of action as there is no longer a government which represents the people. Not only is the president and his cadre, henchmen and gophers all working to erode our rights, Congress, both the House and Senate seem to be unwilling to act on behalf of those person whom they supposedly represent..
For those who may have actually studied a bit of history and remember what they may have learned about how Adolph Hitler and the Brown Shirts came into power, the situation is terrifying.
Basically, after years of moral decline and political corruption, a socialist Christian group began to move politically and slowly gained the acceptance of the masses who either thought nothing would come of it or were too lazy to resist. That group was the Nazi party, supported by Christian fundamentalist, extreme right wingers and others of that ilk.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, few U.S. of A. citizens are well educated nor did they learn their history.
Short of a revolution, which would be in keeping with ideals and understandings of the founding fathers of this nation regarding a government that no longer represents its citizens, what would you have us do?
They are being taken way, and I do say something -- as well as doing something about it.
Every one of the rights curtailed in the past decade were my rights, and yours. The fact that neither of us may have needed to invoke them doesn't make them any less our rights.
What would you suggest. Murder? Boston tea party? I do everything I know how to persuade the people I can reach but for the most part it falls on deaf ears. When you are surrounded by what seems to be millions of ignorant people who only vote, if at all, for the candidate that would give them a false sense of security rather than thinking of weather their rights or liberties were being abridged, it gets pretty frustrating. At this point in the history of the US, revolution may be the only answer to regaining what was once ours.
Answers:
Under the present administration, the rights of all United states citizens are being taken away.
Last week the president signed into a law a bill that gives him the authorization to conduct wire taps, collect emails and the like on all citizens, even those with no known links to any foreign government or terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, the usual course of actions for most citizens is to complain but do nothing.
They can not be blamed fro such a lack of action as there is no longer a government which represents the people. Not only is the president and his cadre, henchmen and gophers all working to erode our rights, Congress, both the House and Senate seem to be unwilling to act on behalf of those person whom they supposedly represent..
For those who may have actually studied a bit of history and remember what they may have learned about how Adolph Hitler and the Brown Shirts came into power, the situation is terrifying.
Basically, after years of moral decline and political corruption, a socialist Christian group began to move politically and slowly gained the acceptance of the masses who either thought nothing would come of it or were too lazy to resist. That group was the Nazi party, supported by Christian fundamentalist, extreme right wingers and others of that ilk.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, few U.S. of A. citizens are well educated nor did they learn their history.
Short of a revolution, which would be in keeping with ideals and understandings of the founding fathers of this nation regarding a government that no longer represents its citizens, what would you have us do?
They are being taken way, and I do say something -- as well as doing something about it.
Every one of the rights curtailed in the past decade were my rights, and yours. The fact that neither of us may have needed to invoke them doesn't make them any less our rights.
What would you suggest. Murder? Boston tea party? I do everything I know how to persuade the people I can reach but for the most part it falls on deaf ears. When you are surrounded by what seems to be millions of ignorant people who only vote, if at all, for the candidate that would give them a false sense of security rather than thinking of weather their rights or liberties were being abridged, it gets pretty frustrating. At this point in the history of the US, revolution may be the only answer to regaining what was once ours.
If your on Social Security Disability Benefits for an illness can you lease a truck with out penalties?
Answers:
The only thing I can see impacting it would be if its for a business. If this is the case then make sure you read up on your social security income guidelines and stay below what your allowed to make. Otherwise no if its personal you can buy or lease a vehicle without any impact. You may however need to get a statement from social security for proof of income if proof is required.
As long as you have a drivers license I don't know why you couldn't.
One should have nothing to do with the other, unless the disability is something which affects your driving, like epilepsy.
if you make money with the truck the income will affect your benefits.
if you are the owner of the truck it could as it is an extra income and my be classed your work ... if you are renting one it will not mater as long as you are not loading the truck that means you are well to work.
Hope that helps
All dealerships look for is consistent income and that the truck payment is no more than certain percentage of your income. That is called debt to income. That also affects your credit worthiness. Before they run your credit, they can do a pre-approval by you bringing your on credit report and telling them whats on your credit. I know thats more info than you asked but it is good to be informed when buying a vehicle. Also you may have an issue if you are doing anything that will cause you to make money with the vehice. Anything that will give you more money may affect you benefits.
What........
What has being on disability got to do with driving a truck..
If your neighbor goes and knocks on your door, does it mean they're trespassing?
Just thought of it.
Answers:
Only if you have previously indicated they are not to enter your property, or have signs up stating "no trespassing".
Generally, there is nothing wrong with entering a property itself, it is entering when you are not wanted %26 not leaving when asked that is the problem.
Only if you've warned them - through the local police - not to come onto your property
No. You have an implied invitation to allow guests to nock on your door.
If it's your bathroom door, then it is.
Get rid of the Welcome mat on your front doorstep.
Quite frankly it depends on where the door to the entrance to your house is located. If it's easily accessible and no signs are posted on the path to it stating that being there is trespassing, then knocking on it wouldn't constitute trespassing. By easily accessible it would mean it isn't beyond a closed, gated wall or such.
yes it does.
no not at all. lf they knock on your door lt doesn`t mean to say they are trespassing. maybe they just want to know you or lf they can borrow something. l had my neighbour knock on my door to tell me l forgot to turn off my car lights
Not in TN, unless you have a private property, no trespassing sign posted. Salesmen, missionaries, etc., can knock on your door. Is there any reason you even asked this strange question?
Nope, they have the right t. If they entered your premises unasked. Then it is tresspassing.
Yes, especially if they're Democrats.. The last Democrat to knock on my door,, brought me a homemade cake and some vegetables that they grew...I bet they were laced with communist drugs or something. Sheesh, just leave me alone. I hate all my neighbors. They're all Hilary loving gays who knock on my door when I'm busy being mad at liberals.
tresspassing?is these few lines that is supposed to help us decide tresspassing?no it is not tresspassing unless he has been told by the police he can not come on your property.the way you have it written you want tresspassing for just knocking on the door. does that apply to everyone that knowcks on you door.you did not give enough info for anyone to make a decision
it depends what ur neigbours like. if u think there they sort of ppl 2 tresspass then maybe they are lol.
not unless they've been forewarned not to come onto your property.
Answers:
Only if you have previously indicated they are not to enter your property, or have signs up stating "no trespassing".
Generally, there is nothing wrong with entering a property itself, it is entering when you are not wanted %26 not leaving when asked that is the problem.
Only if you've warned them - through the local police - not to come onto your property
No. You have an implied invitation to allow guests to nock on your door.
If it's your bathroom door, then it is.
Get rid of the Welcome mat on your front doorstep.
Quite frankly it depends on where the door to the entrance to your house is located. If it's easily accessible and no signs are posted on the path to it stating that being there is trespassing, then knocking on it wouldn't constitute trespassing. By easily accessible it would mean it isn't beyond a closed, gated wall or such.
yes it does.
no not at all. lf they knock on your door lt doesn`t mean to say they are trespassing. maybe they just want to know you or lf they can borrow something. l had my neighbour knock on my door to tell me l forgot to turn off my car lights
Not in TN, unless you have a private property, no trespassing sign posted. Salesmen, missionaries, etc., can knock on your door. Is there any reason you even asked this strange question?
Nope, they have the right t. If they entered your premises unasked. Then it is tresspassing.
Yes, especially if they're Democrats.. The last Democrat to knock on my door,, brought me a homemade cake and some vegetables that they grew...I bet they were laced with communist drugs or something. Sheesh, just leave me alone. I hate all my neighbors. They're all Hilary loving gays who knock on my door when I'm busy being mad at liberals.
tresspassing?is these few lines that is supposed to help us decide tresspassing?no it is not tresspassing unless he has been told by the police he can not come on your property.the way you have it written you want tresspassing for just knocking on the door. does that apply to everyone that knowcks on you door.you did not give enough info for anyone to make a decision
it depends what ur neigbours like. if u think there they sort of ppl 2 tresspass then maybe they are lol.
not unless they've been forewarned not to come onto your property.
If your mother in law leaves her son her house?
Even though the children grew up in this house, when the Mamaw took care of them when they were children. who's house is it if I am married to the father, Is it his only? or ours? or the children's? If it is ours, how do I get it accross to them? or should we sell it and move, and will the new house be ours?
Answers:
You are not very clear.
If she left the house to her son, it's his.
If you are married to that son, in a
community property state, you have an interest.
If you are not married to that son,
legally, you have no claim.
Ethically, the Mothers choice was made for a reason,
it was her 'Last Will`. - If the family wants to contravene
her wishes, they may, but that's their choice,
and it can't be forced on the recipient.
It's his, and you have absolutely no claim to it if he doesn't want you to have any of it, even in a community property state. If he sells the house, and you buy a new one, any money he puts down on the house is his only, and if you were to get a divorce, he would get that down payment as a percentage on his side of the settlement.
The house will be transfered soley into your husbands name.
It is unlikely that as an inherited item you can make claim.
It is possible that if your marraige is stable your husband will transfer half to you.
Frankly I woull dput it in the childrens names then there can be no issues.
I am interested in your motive behing the question!
This would depend on the marital laws, how the will was worded and many other factors.
Why worry about it. You all have an investment in it.
Good Luck.
Totally depends on the State, in a Joint Property state it would belongs equally to each spouse.
Rather you live in a community property or a 鈥榡oint鈥?property state, the answer is still the same---inherited property is considered separate property (which means it鈥檚 just *his*) as long as it remains separate (ie he doesn鈥檛 add your name to the title).
However, if the property increases in value during the marriage, that increase *might* be considered martial property. For example if the increase was due to an improvement that was made using martial funds.
You need to check the laws of your specific state.
Answers:
You are not very clear.
If she left the house to her son, it's his.
If you are married to that son, in a
community property state, you have an interest.
If you are not married to that son,
legally, you have no claim.
Ethically, the Mothers choice was made for a reason,
it was her 'Last Will`. - If the family wants to contravene
her wishes, they may, but that's their choice,
and it can't be forced on the recipient.
It's his, and you have absolutely no claim to it if he doesn't want you to have any of it, even in a community property state. If he sells the house, and you buy a new one, any money he puts down on the house is his only, and if you were to get a divorce, he would get that down payment as a percentage on his side of the settlement.
The house will be transfered soley into your husbands name.
It is unlikely that as an inherited item you can make claim.
It is possible that if your marraige is stable your husband will transfer half to you.
Frankly I woull dput it in the childrens names then there can be no issues.
I am interested in your motive behing the question!
This would depend on the marital laws, how the will was worded and many other factors.
Why worry about it. You all have an investment in it.
Good Luck.
Totally depends on the State, in a Joint Property state it would belongs equally to each spouse.
Rather you live in a community property or a 鈥榡oint鈥?property state, the answer is still the same---inherited property is considered separate property (which means it鈥檚 just *his*) as long as it remains separate (ie he doesn鈥檛 add your name to the title).
However, if the property increases in value during the marriage, that increase *might* be considered martial property. For example if the increase was due to an improvement that was made using martial funds.
You need to check the laws of your specific state.
If your Mom had aborted you, would you be sad about it?
Someone asked me recently, "How would you feel if your Mom had aborted you?"
I just laughed--she didn't see the impossibility in her question.
Answers:
Of course not.
First of all, people don't get aborted, pregnancies get aborted. Anyone who talks about "aborting babies" doesn't even understand the medical definitions of the argument and should take the time to learn those before trying to legislate their beliefs.
Second of all, had my mother terminated the pregnancy that resulted in me, I would not have been developed enough to have a fully operational nervous system so I wouldn't have "felt" anything.
Well, I'm alive and I am very glad she did not.
I doubt you would remember
LOL...since balls of cells do not feel emotions...No I would not have been sad.
That was a pretty lame argument!
But if you believe in human soul, then wouldn't your soul be sad ?
Probably
Are you thinking of abortion?
I'm glad I've been given the chance to think about it.
wow. Now that is a dumb question.
You were perfectly in the right to laugh at her.
I'm pissed, I'd rather be chillin up in heaven now.
I suppose, but it would be impossible to have emotions at that point, and you would need to be able to reason the decision, which would also be impossible.
IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF PAIN AND SUFFERING BEFORE I DIED IF SHE WOULD HAVE.
IT IS TORTURE TO THE BABY. THEY FEEL THE PAIN.
I have a Bi-Polar mom and I dont exist in her mind so I kinda have been aborted... Had I been given a choice to be born or not.. I would have chosen not to be born
actually they would have felt pain. abortion is very painful.
My mother tried but I just kept jumping away from the hanger, she couldn't get me. (Just joking)
So sad I could probably cry a river. My mom is my cradle made of harmony and justice. And I even sleep alone in my bed!
Sorry Dan, but you obviously are the one who doesn't understand. I know a lot of people like you who try to define an unborn baby by calling it a clump of cells, a fetus or zygote but the fact remains that it is life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.
A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.
So convinced is society now that this is a genuine human life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure.
Yes Dan, had your mother aborted you, you most certainly would have felt pain.
EDIT: Sorry Xindy but I don't live in a fancy house, although some of my furniture is made of wood. Do you think a tree has the same value as a human life?
And as far as the burger goes, sure it was once a life, as was the chicken and the fish I ate. But again, hardly comparable to that of a human baby. Still, I probably wouldn't advocate eating meat either if they killed the cow by ripping it limb from limb while it was awake and writhing in agony.
abortion is a choice not to be made without considerable assessment of the situation.
if the life of the mother is threatened by childbirth complications,
if the decision is based on recommendations by medical and scientific experts about either the mother or fetus,
if environment and other factors can seriously impact the lives of either or both the mother and fetus,
then theorectically, I would agree that the abortion decision is the right one.
I'd rather have not come into the world at all than be the result of an unwanted pregnancy, especially if it was a case of rape. I know people argue that there are people that would really like to adopt a baby, but there are children out there that need homes. Those children deserve to be loved and cared for just as much as a baby. Adopt them. I plan to when I'm older and more financially stable.
P.S. Hey Osborne_pkg. You know that burger you ate the other day was a life once too. And the trees that were cut down so you could live in that fancy house of yours were alive once too. Do you want to tell us that it's wrong for us to feed and house ourselves?
EDIT: Who's to say whether a tree has the same value as a human life or not. Just don't force your beliefs on my body. I probably would never get an abortion if it were due to my own carelessness, but in the case of rape or incest or eptopic pregnancy, I would like the option to be open for me. That's all I'm saying.
Well, according to some beliefs, the aborted baby goes directly to heaven so in that respect, you would be getting a free pass into heaven without having to go through life with all it's hardships, such as having to go to school, get a job, work hard all your life only to be abused by people and get gangstalked and maybe murdered or raped or put in prison, so yes, maybe being aborted is the best of the two choices, unless you are born into wealth and never have to work or worry about money, just sit around dangling your toes in the pool and sipping lemonade, but then there are still other bad things that could happen to you such as being in an accident or getting some sort of horrible disease, so probably the best choice is still to be aborted since there is no pain if it is done early enough in the pregnancy and you go directly to heaven.
If a tree falls in a forest, does anyone care?
I just laughed--she didn't see the impossibility in her question.
Answers:
Of course not.
First of all, people don't get aborted, pregnancies get aborted. Anyone who talks about "aborting babies" doesn't even understand the medical definitions of the argument and should take the time to learn those before trying to legislate their beliefs.
Second of all, had my mother terminated the pregnancy that resulted in me, I would not have been developed enough to have a fully operational nervous system so I wouldn't have "felt" anything.
Well, I'm alive and I am very glad she did not.
I doubt you would remember
LOL...since balls of cells do not feel emotions...No I would not have been sad.
That was a pretty lame argument!
But if you believe in human soul, then wouldn't your soul be sad ?
Probably
Are you thinking of abortion?
I'm glad I've been given the chance to think about it.
wow. Now that is a dumb question.
You were perfectly in the right to laugh at her.
I'm pissed, I'd rather be chillin up in heaven now.
I suppose, but it would be impossible to have emotions at that point, and you would need to be able to reason the decision, which would also be impossible.
IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF PAIN AND SUFFERING BEFORE I DIED IF SHE WOULD HAVE.
IT IS TORTURE TO THE BABY. THEY FEEL THE PAIN.
I have a Bi-Polar mom and I dont exist in her mind so I kinda have been aborted... Had I been given a choice to be born or not.. I would have chosen not to be born
actually they would have felt pain. abortion is very painful.
My mother tried but I just kept jumping away from the hanger, she couldn't get me. (Just joking)
So sad I could probably cry a river. My mom is my cradle made of harmony and justice. And I even sleep alone in my bed!
Sorry Dan, but you obviously are the one who doesn't understand. I know a lot of people like you who try to define an unborn baby by calling it a clump of cells, a fetus or zygote but the fact remains that it is life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.
A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.
So convinced is society now that this is a genuine human life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure.
Yes Dan, had your mother aborted you, you most certainly would have felt pain.
EDIT: Sorry Xindy but I don't live in a fancy house, although some of my furniture is made of wood. Do you think a tree has the same value as a human life?
And as far as the burger goes, sure it was once a life, as was the chicken and the fish I ate. But again, hardly comparable to that of a human baby. Still, I probably wouldn't advocate eating meat either if they killed the cow by ripping it limb from limb while it was awake and writhing in agony.
abortion is a choice not to be made without considerable assessment of the situation.
if the life of the mother is threatened by childbirth complications,
if the decision is based on recommendations by medical and scientific experts about either the mother or fetus,
if environment and other factors can seriously impact the lives of either or both the mother and fetus,
then theorectically, I would agree that the abortion decision is the right one.
I'd rather have not come into the world at all than be the result of an unwanted pregnancy, especially if it was a case of rape. I know people argue that there are people that would really like to adopt a baby, but there are children out there that need homes. Those children deserve to be loved and cared for just as much as a baby. Adopt them. I plan to when I'm older and more financially stable.
P.S. Hey Osborne_pkg. You know that burger you ate the other day was a life once too. And the trees that were cut down so you could live in that fancy house of yours were alive once too. Do you want to tell us that it's wrong for us to feed and house ourselves?
EDIT: Who's to say whether a tree has the same value as a human life or not. Just don't force your beliefs on my body. I probably would never get an abortion if it were due to my own carelessness, but in the case of rape or incest or eptopic pregnancy, I would like the option to be open for me. That's all I'm saying.
Well, according to some beliefs, the aborted baby goes directly to heaven so in that respect, you would be getting a free pass into heaven without having to go through life with all it's hardships, such as having to go to school, get a job, work hard all your life only to be abused by people and get gangstalked and maybe murdered or raped or put in prison, so yes, maybe being aborted is the best of the two choices, unless you are born into wealth and never have to work or worry about money, just sit around dangling your toes in the pool and sipping lemonade, but then there are still other bad things that could happen to you such as being in an accident or getting some sort of horrible disease, so probably the best choice is still to be aborted since there is no pain if it is done early enough in the pregnancy and you go directly to heaven.
If a tree falls in a forest, does anyone care?
If your lawyer dies and you are not notifyed can you sue the lawfirm he worked for?
Answers:
If you hired the lawfirm to take care of your legal interests, after the handling attorney dies, a different attorney will assume the deceased attorney's caseload.
However, if you are not satisfied by the services of the new attorney, you can always fire the firm.
In order to file a suit, you must be able to prove damages. What damages are you claiming?
Good luck.
For what?
You can't sue someone's boss because they died on you, sorry.
How were you harmed in a way that requires compensation?
Usually when dealing with a law firm, you are signing a contract with a firm and not the individual lawyer. They can assign or reassign the case to any attorney in the firm they choose.
Why would it matter if you were not notified? Technically, any person in a firm may represent you under the law. You retain the LAW FIRM, not the attorney in it. And what would you sue them for anyway? Lack of notice?
Now if you're talking about legal MALPRACTICE, where the dead lawyer screwed up your case prior to death, then YES, the firm is still liable for the actions of their attorneys, whether alive or dead. So if your motion wasn't filed by a certain date and you lost your case on a technicality, which could have been prevented by the dead lawyer, then sue their asses, until their *** looks like baboon butt.
Actually, I think they only have to notify you if the lawyer was working on an actual, unresolved case at the time. Being on retainer doesn't mean they have to notify you.
I would not think so. You can not control when you die. And it is difficult to give notification as to such an event.
sue them for what? knowone has done anything wrong. this one of the dumbest questions i have seen
It would depend if the firm was a 1 lawyer firm. If they only had one lawyer and your case was left with no legal representation you may have a case. If there was another lawyer in the firm perfectly capable then no probably not unless your case was harmed in some way because of this. I think you should talk to the firm about this matter rather than suing most matters can be resolved with a simple phone call.
If your husband changes his address to a different state, is this called desertion legally?
he registerd his car in that state because he is working there he claimed. However he does not have a permanent job in that state. He goes to diffenent states to work.
Answers:
No, it's not desertion.
His Income Tax filings must be accurate, and if not, he can be liable for fraud.
To live in more than one state is normal for some. You can only file your taxes at the residence where you spend 6 months of the year.
It's probably not a company vehicle because you stated that he registered it himself. That being the case, he may be registering it in his name at his place of employ, which is illegal because he needs to pay car taxes where he lives - unless there is no state tax where he lives.
Desertion (Abandonment) is more or less when he leaves your joint-residence completely and never intends on returning.
I have to be vague with my answers for a reason. Sorry.
If he changes his address to across the street; it's desertion.
No, it isn't. It doesn't matter where his work address is, where his car is registered, where he lists on his income taxes, etc. All that matters is whether he is ACTUALLY living with you or not. Desertion usually requires actual abandonment for a specific (statutory) period of time, and this can vary from state to state. If you tried to get a divorce by saying he abandoned you, the judge will want to know where the two of you have been living, how often you see each other, etc. If you see each other all the time but his car is registered in another state, it will be insufficient to sustain the claim. You should call a lawyer for legal advice as to how to handle the situation (including other options, and what the legal period is for desertion).
Answers:
No, it's not desertion.
His Income Tax filings must be accurate, and if not, he can be liable for fraud.
To live in more than one state is normal for some. You can only file your taxes at the residence where you spend 6 months of the year.
It's probably not a company vehicle because you stated that he registered it himself. That being the case, he may be registering it in his name at his place of employ, which is illegal because he needs to pay car taxes where he lives - unless there is no state tax where he lives.
Desertion (Abandonment) is more or less when he leaves your joint-residence completely and never intends on returning.
I have to be vague with my answers for a reason. Sorry.
If he changes his address to across the street; it's desertion.
No, it isn't. It doesn't matter where his work address is, where his car is registered, where he lists on his income taxes, etc. All that matters is whether he is ACTUALLY living with you or not. Desertion usually requires actual abandonment for a specific (statutory) period of time, and this can vary from state to state. If you tried to get a divorce by saying he abandoned you, the judge will want to know where the two of you have been living, how often you see each other, etc. If you see each other all the time but his car is registered in another state, it will be insufficient to sustain the claim. You should call a lawyer for legal advice as to how to handle the situation (including other options, and what the legal period is for desertion).
If your house catches on fire and the fire department puts it out, do you have to pay them?
...or is it just covered by the taxes you have paid the city?
Answers:
In many localities there is a service fee for fire calls.
I think its covered by the taxes.
It's a public service, and like the police, the fire department is paid by tax dollars.
You pay them with your taxes.
usually peoplepay yearly fees called fired dues. this usually covers the cost of their services. in many rural areas, people don't pay fire dues, but the Volunteer Fire Dept. does go door to door asking for a specific donation to help w/costs etc. if you pay your dues and/or donation then usually the insurance takes care of everything else.
Where I live it is covered by your taxes if you live in the city limits. If not you have to pay a yearly fee to be a member of the fire association or you will be charged.
Your taxes poays foir this service.
Not that I've heard, but I'll bet such a policy would encourage people to practice better fire prevention and safety in the first place.
Taxes....
Answers:
In many localities there is a service fee for fire calls.
I think its covered by the taxes.
It's a public service, and like the police, the fire department is paid by tax dollars.
You pay them with your taxes.
usually peoplepay yearly fees called fired dues. this usually covers the cost of their services. in many rural areas, people don't pay fire dues, but the Volunteer Fire Dept. does go door to door asking for a specific donation to help w/costs etc. if you pay your dues and/or donation then usually the insurance takes care of everything else.
Where I live it is covered by your taxes if you live in the city limits. If not you have to pay a yearly fee to be a member of the fire association or you will be charged.
Your taxes poays foir this service.
Not that I've heard, but I'll bet such a policy would encourage people to practice better fire prevention and safety in the first place.
Taxes....
If your ex lives in another country and child support was not set before they left?
can it be enforced while he is still overseas? Would he be forced to come back to the US for court dates?
Answers:
If your case was filed and served on him in a valid manner, then an order can be entered by the court. Some countries participate in the UIFSA (uniform interstate family support act). Under UIFSA any state (or foreign country) will accept the initiating state's order, register it in their own court and enforce it.
You can't force your ex to come back for court. If he is living in a country that does not participate, then there is no enforcement. You can have your local child support enforcement agency take up the enforcement once the order is established. Then if his past due support gets to $2500.00 or more, his passport can not be renewed until the balance is paid down below that level.
One more thing. If he is in the military, it is sometimes difficult to get a default judgment. A court may grant an order but leave it open for retro modification when he comes back from active duty. If you already have an order that was entered before he went active, then you can issue a income withholding order through the court to the DFAS (the gov agency that pays the military personnel).
Sadly if he is in another country there really is nothing you can do until he steps back on US soil. What a shame this is not fair to the kiddos. Do you question if he is the father?
Answers:
If your case was filed and served on him in a valid manner, then an order can be entered by the court. Some countries participate in the UIFSA (uniform interstate family support act). Under UIFSA any state (or foreign country) will accept the initiating state's order, register it in their own court and enforce it.
You can't force your ex to come back for court. If he is living in a country that does not participate, then there is no enforcement. You can have your local child support enforcement agency take up the enforcement once the order is established. Then if his past due support gets to $2500.00 or more, his passport can not be renewed until the balance is paid down below that level.
One more thing. If he is in the military, it is sometimes difficult to get a default judgment. A court may grant an order but leave it open for retro modification when he comes back from active duty. If you already have an order that was entered before he went active, then you can issue a income withholding order through the court to the DFAS (the gov agency that pays the military personnel).
Sadly if he is in another country there really is nothing you can do until he steps back on US soil. What a shame this is not fair to the kiddos. Do you question if he is the father?
If your ex boyfriend new girlfriend asalted you what and how would you go about it.?
I thought he was breaking up with her his roommate showed her where I lived and she came over and choked me I don't know her last name but I did make a police report and plan to get her charged but I also want to put up a restraing order against her and those that were witnessing and did nothing
Answers:
you did everything you were suppose to do.me personally i would have found out where she lives and kicked her a***! you are very good because it would have been on and crackin when she stepped to my face, but some people handle things better than others..Good luck i even feel like kickin her a** for you!! lol lol lol
Sounds like you took all the right steps. All you have to do is follow through!
I love women. They fall for any bulls*t a guy tells them.
Leave him NOW!! Did he come to the Police Station with you? LEAVE HIM NOW!!! he is not worth your trouble, move on, there are other fish in the sea!
You already did everything you were supposed to. Just steer clear of her and the ex both.
Good for you. You made a police report. Now follow through and press charges. Tell the police that you fear for your safety and want a restraining order. Just make sure to do exactly what the police tell you and you will be in control.
And if you haven't already done so, dump him. You need to be around nice people who don't hurt others, and who are faithful to their significant others. You are worth it.
I would ask the ex-boyfriend, if you are still talking to him, what her last name is. Or, I would talk to the officer that took your report, I hope that he gave you a buisness card, and ask him, if he finds out her last name, if he would tell you, so that you can have a restraining order put againist her. He should have no problem helping you out with that.
If you were "asalted," I would use "pepper" spray on her.
File a report with the police department. File for a restraining order. Cut off all connections with them both. Call Dr. Laura or read her books.
You will be able to get a restraining order because there was violence involved. As long as the police investigate it you should have no problem, because they can get her last name from your ex. What is good though, is that there were witnesses and hopefully the police took statements from them.
Follow up on the police report to make sure they are doing something about it and once they complete the investigation you will be able to get a copy of the report to take to the court to file for a restraining order.
The police report should have her information on it as far as first and last name and her address.
Answers:
you did everything you were suppose to do.me personally i would have found out where she lives and kicked her a***! you are very good because it would have been on and crackin when she stepped to my face, but some people handle things better than others..Good luck i even feel like kickin her a** for you!! lol lol lol
Sounds like you took all the right steps. All you have to do is follow through!
I love women. They fall for any bulls*t a guy tells them.
Leave him NOW!! Did he come to the Police Station with you? LEAVE HIM NOW!!! he is not worth your trouble, move on, there are other fish in the sea!
You already did everything you were supposed to. Just steer clear of her and the ex both.
Good for you. You made a police report. Now follow through and press charges. Tell the police that you fear for your safety and want a restraining order. Just make sure to do exactly what the police tell you and you will be in control.
And if you haven't already done so, dump him. You need to be around nice people who don't hurt others, and who are faithful to their significant others. You are worth it.
I would ask the ex-boyfriend, if you are still talking to him, what her last name is. Or, I would talk to the officer that took your report, I hope that he gave you a buisness card, and ask him, if he finds out her last name, if he would tell you, so that you can have a restraining order put againist her. He should have no problem helping you out with that.
If you were "asalted," I would use "pepper" spray on her.
File a report with the police department. File for a restraining order. Cut off all connections with them both. Call Dr. Laura or read her books.
You will be able to get a restraining order because there was violence involved. As long as the police investigate it you should have no problem, because they can get her last name from your ex. What is good though, is that there were witnesses and hopefully the police took statements from them.
Follow up on the police report to make sure they are doing something about it and once they complete the investigation you will be able to get a copy of the report to take to the court to file for a restraining order.
The police report should have her information on it as far as first and last name and her address.
If your caught by the police when your smoking a cigarette?
what is the penalty of being caught by the police when your smoking a cigarette?
Answers:
It is only a minor crime and you just have to pay a minimal fine.
Depends on the law. Different municipalities have different laws. Are you a minor? Are you smoking in a place clearly marked "No Smoking Area?"
We need more information to give a correct answer.
They stuff week old doughnuts down your throat till you puke. If you are caught smoking a cigarette while caught inside a building burglarizing it the penalty is greater.
Another feel good unenforceable law which is taking away the cops time from catching real criminals, which is what the cops would rather be doing anyway...
1. What country are you in? This question is visible in the US and the UK. It may be visible in other countries as well, but those are enough to make a general answer impossible.
2. Where were you smoking? Smoking is still legal in some places in both countries.
Don't worry about the police, worry about yourself the penalty you will probably have to pay is about 10 years off your life span.
nufink
1 yr in Jail.. !!
none!
What are you smoking in your cigarette?Were you smoking one of those cigarettes,while writing this question?Maybe some states have laws about smoking while driving.If not what state of mind are you in?
I'm sure you must be talking about another country other than the USA. What can they do? Put you in Jail, make you do community service. Gave you a fine if your under age what kind of fine. Probably nothing.
Answers:
It is only a minor crime and you just have to pay a minimal fine.
Depends on the law. Different municipalities have different laws. Are you a minor? Are you smoking in a place clearly marked "No Smoking Area?"
We need more information to give a correct answer.
They stuff week old doughnuts down your throat till you puke. If you are caught smoking a cigarette while caught inside a building burglarizing it the penalty is greater.
Another feel good unenforceable law which is taking away the cops time from catching real criminals, which is what the cops would rather be doing anyway...
1. What country are you in? This question is visible in the US and the UK. It may be visible in other countries as well, but those are enough to make a general answer impossible.
2. Where were you smoking? Smoking is still legal in some places in both countries.
Don't worry about the police, worry about yourself the penalty you will probably have to pay is about 10 years off your life span.
nufink
1 yr in Jail.. !!
none!
What are you smoking in your cigarette?Were you smoking one of those cigarettes,while writing this question?Maybe some states have laws about smoking while driving.If not what state of mind are you in?
I'm sure you must be talking about another country other than the USA. What can they do? Put you in Jail, make you do community service. Gave you a fine if your under age what kind of fine. Probably nothing.
If your boss knows you are looking for employment outside of the company can you be fired?
Answers:
Yup. You don't "own" your job. Employment is an at will legal relationship: You can quit your job at any time for any reason, and by the very same token, your employer is perfectly free to decide they no longer need your services. (unless of course you have a union contract or employment contract that says otherwise, in which case you are no longer an "at will" employee)
The only time an employer is not free to fire a person for any reason is if the firing is done because of sex, race, color, religion, pregnancy, disability, etc.
But if they know you are looking to quit anyway, then it it perfectly legal for them to help you along.
Yeap. You can be terminated at any time with or with out cause and with or without notice. If you are spending time at work job searching you would be terminated for cause.
yes
Yes, your employer can fire you for nothing if they want to. Most companies would prefer to catch you at something to fire you over, even if it means getting those 3 write ups first. The reason for that is to keep from having to pay you unemployment.
If you live in a "Right to Work" state you can get fired for any reason or no reason at all. Here in washington state, they have to have cause.
It depends upon whether you are using company time to job search or your own time and whether you are an "at will" employee or a union employee. If you are management or an at-will employee, then you can be fired for no reason at all. Looking for another job could be considered a show of disloyalty to the employer. If you are a union or classified employee, it is harder to get rid of you. Some employers don't hold it against an employee for wanting to better himself and improve his circumstances, but in many situations, if the employer finds out you are looking and you are a valued employee, he may start looking to fill your spot before you leave him in the lurch or he may offer you a raise to stay.
If your are 17 and a runaway can you still go to school?
Answers:
Not likely. Schools and/or teachers are in contact with parents more than you think; especially if you skip classes or show abnormal behavior patterns. Likewise, most runaways are caught if the parents are smart enough to check with the school to see if the runaway is attending class. Police will definitely check the schools.
yes, I did it when I was a run away years ago.
You have to have an address, phone number %26 several things must be signed by a parent/guardian.
I guess you could use a friends address. If you use your old one they would just occasionally send things home or call if you do something wrong/great.
A PO Box MIGHT be an option, not sure.
I the person must have run away for their own reasons but that's a lot to have on ones shoulders, trying to sneak to school anonymously.
I was in your shoes not too many years ago. All I can tell you is what I was told.
To "runaway" you must become emancipated. To become emancipated, you must work a full-time job, which means that you cannot be in school. However, if you can find another approvable guardian, you do not have to be emancipated.
Be sure you are making the right decision before taking this step. Do not make the decision while your emotions have control either. Sometimes sitting down and having a mature conversation can fix things so you don't need to run away.
Good luck! Keep you head up!
Yea but if somebody reported you missing the cops will be waiting for you there.
If your apartment floods, destroying most of your belongings, what should your legal course of action be?
My basement apartment in brooklyn flooded two days ago, damaging a great deal of my belongings (I was up to my knees in water). My lanlord, not very sympathetic, came over and offered me another basement apartment he rents out, which is bigger than mine but in a worse neighborhood. I, frustrated, took it because i really have no one to stay here with in New York, and I wanted to get the things that were actually still useable out of the filthy apartment. I want to find a new place and move out, but i feel like i should be compensated. I took pictures of everything. Do I, as a tenant, have any rights when it comes to this situation?
Answers:
Unless you had renter's insurance, you have no legal recourse.
If you didn't purchase renters insurance, you are out of luck!
You should've purchased renter's insurance. You're SOL.
If your a Democrat...BLAME GW...then whine and ask for federal help...then whine you dont get it fast enough.then find another reason to whine...
Probably not--Thats why Insurance Companies are in business---You may or may not have insurance and it might not cover flooding anyway.
If water was in the items in the basement, best thing to do is send them out with the trash. They will never be usable again. We had 4 feet of water in our basement (it also contains sewage if you didnt know) so it is best you moved out. It is impossible to get all the germs out. Sorry.
Hmmm, you probably dont have much recourse unless you can prove that there was known issues with the piping (I am assuming this is what caused the flooding) that the landlord refused to fix. I suggest getting renters insurance from now on.
You can sue him..I lived in an apartment when I was young and I had renters insurance..beyond that I don't know
I'm not saying this to be a jerk and I don't know what your rights are. I'm in Las Vegas and when I moved in proof of renters insurance was a requirement along with giving the owners indemnity. While you researching your rights take pictures of the water source, find out all the the landlords property holdings and see if there is a history of disgruntled tenants and their complaints and present or past suits. You need to put him on the defensive in order to get him to listen to you.
You can notify your insurance company, assuming you have insurance.
If you want something from the landlord you will have to prove that through neglect, negligence or by intentional act he caused you apartment to flood.
If it was a result of storms or other acts of God and you aren't insured, you are out the cost of your belongings. Sorry.
hopefully you have renters insurance. if so then yes you are fine. you should contact your city bto see if you have any resources to tap into.
Only if you have renter's insurance. That would reimburse you for your damaged property, but unfortunately, because the flooding isn't his fault, a court probably wouldn't hold him liable for the damage. His insurance probably wouldn't cover your property either, it'll just cover the damage to his building, not it's contents. What a drag. I'm so sorry...
With out Renters Insurance your best bet is to see if there is any type of assistance locally for those that were displaced from their homes.
Is FEMA offering any assistance or local charitable organizations?
It's good your landlord had another place for you to stay.
No he doesn't have to pay you. His insurance should cover the actual apt. being fixed and you should have had rentors insurance!! I have it through State Farm %26 it is $93.00/year and I am covered up to $30,000 and that covers if anyone is hurt on my rental property too!!
Only if you have renter's insurance.
renters insurance is the only way you can compensate for your belongings, you can go to web site www.newyorklaws.com, but i can pretty much say with out renters insurance you are not going to see a dime from the owners he is only required to have insurance on the building , and if any body gets hurts on his property,, but like i said you need to go to this web site and find out what new york laws are, GOOD LUCK
Answers:
Unless you had renter's insurance, you have no legal recourse.
If you didn't purchase renters insurance, you are out of luck!
You should've purchased renter's insurance. You're SOL.
If your a Democrat...BLAME GW...then whine and ask for federal help...then whine you dont get it fast enough.then find another reason to whine...
Probably not--Thats why Insurance Companies are in business---You may or may not have insurance and it might not cover flooding anyway.
If water was in the items in the basement, best thing to do is send them out with the trash. They will never be usable again. We had 4 feet of water in our basement (it also contains sewage if you didnt know) so it is best you moved out. It is impossible to get all the germs out. Sorry.
Hmmm, you probably dont have much recourse unless you can prove that there was known issues with the piping (I am assuming this is what caused the flooding) that the landlord refused to fix. I suggest getting renters insurance from now on.
You can sue him..I lived in an apartment when I was young and I had renters insurance..beyond that I don't know
I'm not saying this to be a jerk and I don't know what your rights are. I'm in Las Vegas and when I moved in proof of renters insurance was a requirement along with giving the owners indemnity. While you researching your rights take pictures of the water source, find out all the the landlords property holdings and see if there is a history of disgruntled tenants and their complaints and present or past suits. You need to put him on the defensive in order to get him to listen to you.
You can notify your insurance company, assuming you have insurance.
If you want something from the landlord you will have to prove that through neglect, negligence or by intentional act he caused you apartment to flood.
If it was a result of storms or other acts of God and you aren't insured, you are out the cost of your belongings. Sorry.
hopefully you have renters insurance. if so then yes you are fine. you should contact your city bto see if you have any resources to tap into.
Only if you have renter's insurance. That would reimburse you for your damaged property, but unfortunately, because the flooding isn't his fault, a court probably wouldn't hold him liable for the damage. His insurance probably wouldn't cover your property either, it'll just cover the damage to his building, not it's contents. What a drag. I'm so sorry...
With out Renters Insurance your best bet is to see if there is any type of assistance locally for those that were displaced from their homes.
Is FEMA offering any assistance or local charitable organizations?
It's good your landlord had another place for you to stay.
No he doesn't have to pay you. His insurance should cover the actual apt. being fixed and you should have had rentors insurance!! I have it through State Farm %26 it is $93.00/year and I am covered up to $30,000 and that covers if anyone is hurt on my rental property too!!
Only if you have renter's insurance.
renters insurance is the only way you can compensate for your belongings, you can go to web site www.newyorklaws.com, but i can pretty much say with out renters insurance you are not going to see a dime from the owners he is only required to have insurance on the building , and if any body gets hurts on his property,, but like i said you need to go to this web site and find out what new york laws are, GOOD LUCK
If your a partner on a building,but your name is not on the deed and your partner dies,what can be done?
I was partners in business and on a building we purchaesd for our business, My name was not on the deed for good reason. my business partner died. the company paid the bills for over five years. I now have to fight his family for my half of the building. Is there any one who has been in this same situation that can give me advice on what to do?
Answers:
you can prove your co-ownership over that building either by testimonial evidence, e.g., an employee of the business, friend, or a witness to the deed who knows of your interest over the building, or by some other documents indicative of such interest,e.g., your partner's written admission of your interest either express or implied, receipts, revenue papers, etc. for sure the partnership must have some sort of accounting papers, e.g. balance sheet, showing that the building is an asset of the partnership. at any rate, a deed is just one of the many ways to prove one's interest or ownership over something. the omission of your name in the deed is not the end of it all. for sure, court does not merely confine itself to a mere deed to make a finding. other than documentary evidence, one's cause may also be proven by way of testimonial or real evidence.
you can also verify your partnership agreement. in most cases, the same may be availed of as a basis of inference of your interest over that building.
at any rate, better consult a lawyer before you act on this matter.
good luck!
u nead some kind of proof like a reciept or letter or anything showing u payed for half. when u have this call a lawer and it will be easy winning the case.
My advice is to assemble all of the documents you have on the business and see a lawyer who practices in the area of corporations immediately.
I can assure you this will not be settled without a lawsuit.
What you need to prove generally is three things.
1. That the Partnership existed legally.
2. That the building was Partnership property.
3. What happens to the deceased Partner's share. If you can't prove this, the default is that the deceased Partner's heirs get their share.
The name on the deed is not the beginning and end, unless you present no evidence to refute it.
What will likely be the most persuasive is where the purchase money came from. I suspect that since this is commercial property that you put a minimum of 20% down. Where'd that come from? If you can produce a Partnership check, or at least a personal check for half, you should be good. If the deceased Partner wrote the check, you may be screwed.
Obviously, this is not a simple case. The exact requirement will depend on where you are located and will almost certainly require the assistance of an attorney. If you do not hire an attorney, the other side will and you will probably lose even if you are in the right.
Basically, the bottom line of the case is that you will have to prove that there was a partnership and that the building was purchased with partnership funds with the intent that it was to be the property of the partnership. If you can prove that, the court will impose a "constructive trust" on the property which means that, while title will still belong to the family, you will receive your share of income and your proper share of control over what should be done with the building.
Answers:
you can prove your co-ownership over that building either by testimonial evidence, e.g., an employee of the business, friend, or a witness to the deed who knows of your interest over the building, or by some other documents indicative of such interest,e.g., your partner's written admission of your interest either express or implied, receipts, revenue papers, etc. for sure the partnership must have some sort of accounting papers, e.g. balance sheet, showing that the building is an asset of the partnership. at any rate, a deed is just one of the many ways to prove one's interest or ownership over something. the omission of your name in the deed is not the end of it all. for sure, court does not merely confine itself to a mere deed to make a finding. other than documentary evidence, one's cause may also be proven by way of testimonial or real evidence.
you can also verify your partnership agreement. in most cases, the same may be availed of as a basis of inference of your interest over that building.
at any rate, better consult a lawyer before you act on this matter.
good luck!
u nead some kind of proof like a reciept or letter or anything showing u payed for half. when u have this call a lawer and it will be easy winning the case.
My advice is to assemble all of the documents you have on the business and see a lawyer who practices in the area of corporations immediately.
I can assure you this will not be settled without a lawsuit.
What you need to prove generally is three things.
1. That the Partnership existed legally.
2. That the building was Partnership property.
3. What happens to the deceased Partner's share. If you can't prove this, the default is that the deceased Partner's heirs get their share.
The name on the deed is not the beginning and end, unless you present no evidence to refute it.
What will likely be the most persuasive is where the purchase money came from. I suspect that since this is commercial property that you put a minimum of 20% down. Where'd that come from? If you can produce a Partnership check, or at least a personal check for half, you should be good. If the deceased Partner wrote the check, you may be screwed.
Obviously, this is not a simple case. The exact requirement will depend on where you are located and will almost certainly require the assistance of an attorney. If you do not hire an attorney, the other side will and you will probably lose even if you are in the right.
Basically, the bottom line of the case is that you will have to prove that there was a partnership and that the building was purchased with partnership funds with the intent that it was to be the property of the partnership. If you can prove that, the court will impose a "constructive trust" on the property which means that, while title will still belong to the family, you will receive your share of income and your proper share of control over what should be done with the building.
If you& your family are threatened to be wiped out on phone across st lines can they be sued in civil court?
can this be called a terriost threat as i have a tape of these threats %26 can the fbi be called in
Answers:
you can sue for the pain and suffering that harrassment has caused you and your family. i would go to court, first, a file for a restraining order though so when you do go to civil court, it shows that you put in an effort to stop it.
yeah i would say so
You better be careful. If you taped the conversation without the other party's consent (and it wasn't allowed under a court order), you could be the one in trouble.
Answers:
you can sue for the pain and suffering that harrassment has caused you and your family. i would go to court, first, a file for a restraining order though so when you do go to civil court, it shows that you put in an effort to stop it.
yeah i would say so
You better be careful. If you taped the conversation without the other party's consent (and it wasn't allowed under a court order), you could be the one in trouble.
If you worked some place can you sue if they won't pay you?
It was for one day as a hostess
I waited about two or three months and got nothing in the mail.
No check. They took my I.D. and I punched in a time card that day. The proof I have that I worked there is an email stating that I was hired for the position. I went there and I know what the office, kitchen, some of the employees look like so on and so forth. I worked for 6 hours and I also have a phone calls from them regarding the job.
Answers:
If you worked, you are entitled to be paid. While I would agree that you should talk to your state Department of Labor, you would also have a claim that you could file in small claims court,
Your local labor board just LOVES to hear about employers who won't pay.
Give them a call.
Check with the labor department in your state. They'll be able to help you get paid what you're owed, and maybe more.
Contact your State Division of Labor Standards. You are entitled to be paid.
If you have a contract, you have a right to demand to be paid.
Go for them - too many sleeze bag employers abuse their employees these days.
If you only worked one day, you probably don't have enough value to file a suit. You can, however, report them.
You don't indicate whether you quit or were fired. If you were fired, they should have made arrangements when you left. If you quit, you should have indicated where to send final payment at the time you submitted your notice and asked when the payment would be sent.
By the way, the e-mail is not proof that you worked there, only that you were hired. They can say that you never showed up. Do you have a witness that will state that you did actually work? The punched time card is not really viable since it may have been lost, unless somehow you have a copy of it.
Yes file a claim with the District Justice office and the employer will also end up paying the court cost if you win.
If you live within driving distance to the employer,they expect you to come pick up your check.If they gave you a hat or apron,nametag etc, you will have to return their property to get your check.If you were given an employees handbook,it usually outlines company policy for picking up final checks.Read it and act accordingly.
I waited about two or three months and got nothing in the mail.
No check. They took my I.D. and I punched in a time card that day. The proof I have that I worked there is an email stating that I was hired for the position. I went there and I know what the office, kitchen, some of the employees look like so on and so forth. I worked for 6 hours and I also have a phone calls from them regarding the job.
Answers:
If you worked, you are entitled to be paid. While I would agree that you should talk to your state Department of Labor, you would also have a claim that you could file in small claims court,
Your local labor board just LOVES to hear about employers who won't pay.
Give them a call.
Check with the labor department in your state. They'll be able to help you get paid what you're owed, and maybe more.
Contact your State Division of Labor Standards. You are entitled to be paid.
If you have a contract, you have a right to demand to be paid.
Go for them - too many sleeze bag employers abuse their employees these days.
If you only worked one day, you probably don't have enough value to file a suit. You can, however, report them.
You don't indicate whether you quit or were fired. If you were fired, they should have made arrangements when you left. If you quit, you should have indicated where to send final payment at the time you submitted your notice and asked when the payment would be sent.
By the way, the e-mail is not proof that you worked there, only that you were hired. They can say that you never showed up. Do you have a witness that will state that you did actually work? The punched time card is not really viable since it may have been lost, unless somehow you have a copy of it.
Yes file a claim with the District Justice office and the employer will also end up paying the court cost if you win.
If you live within driving distance to the employer,they expect you to come pick up your check.If they gave you a hat or apron,nametag etc, you will have to return their property to get your check.If you were given an employees handbook,it usually outlines company policy for picking up final checks.Read it and act accordingly.
If you work for a commission only salon, how do you legally keep your clientele if you leave?
what if the owner made you sign an aknowledgement waiver that you cant take you clientele with you?
AND WOULD IT STAND IN COURT!!?
if so is there a legal way around it?
Answers:
Usually, you cannot solicit the clients or set up business within a certain amt of miles from your previous location, for a minimum of X amt of years depending on what the contract states. And yes, if you do, you can be sued %26 lose. (see dulcrayon's answer). If you have such a contract, check with an attorney.
Just let them know where you will be working in future - your owner can't tell anyone where they get their hair cut ! What they choose is their business.
I seriously doubt that would stand up in court.
Such a waiver should be signed at the beginning of your contract of employment.
If it was not - the employer can not force you to sign it when you quit.
you work for commission, but the salon provides your customers. if you came to the salon with a client list, and kept them, then you would probably not have any problem taking them with you, but if you arrived with out clients and acquired them during your employment at that establishment then they belong to the shop-not you.
AND WOULD IT STAND IN COURT!!?
if so is there a legal way around it?
Answers:
Usually, you cannot solicit the clients or set up business within a certain amt of miles from your previous location, for a minimum of X amt of years depending on what the contract states. And yes, if you do, you can be sued %26 lose. (see dulcrayon's answer). If you have such a contract, check with an attorney.
Just let them know where you will be working in future - your owner can't tell anyone where they get their hair cut ! What they choose is their business.
I seriously doubt that would stand up in court.
Such a waiver should be signed at the beginning of your contract of employment.
If it was not - the employer can not force you to sign it when you quit.
you work for commission, but the salon provides your customers. if you came to the salon with a client list, and kept them, then you would probably not have any problem taking them with you, but if you arrived with out clients and acquired them during your employment at that establishment then they belong to the shop-not you.
If you won the lottery in a different state, what kind of an attorney would you get?
Would you get one for your state or the one that you won the lottery in? I know that state laws are the mostly the same so wouldn't you get one in your state?
Answers:
If you won the state lottery, why would you need an attorney? The pay-out rules are clearly stated and not subject to dispute. There are tax implications. In addition, if you did not opt for lump-sum, then you would need to work out the payout modalities. So, you would need an accountant that you trust, especially if you have won a lot of money.
I wouldn't get an attorney, I would go to the nearest lotto office and get my money. Drive home, deposit check.
You're going to need a lawyer on an ongoing basis if you win many millions. I'd pick one in my home state that I trust, and I'd let that attorney find the right kind of lawyer in the other state.
The reason lottery winners get an attorney is to protect their interests. Usually they want to do that in their home state. If legal work needs to be done for some reason in the other state, your attorney will assist you in finding one.
Usually, you want one who deals in Estates, Trusts %26 Wills.
You should get an attorney specializing in your home state's laws because that's where you will be keeping/managing/spending the money.
I don't know your situation but if I were you I would go and claim the money first, get the check, deposit the check and then if you really feel you need an attorney, get one in the state that you live in. I'm sure whoever you get will be some crook who will overcharge you for all of his or her services, just because you're a lottery winner. So who needs them really!
Answers:
If you won the state lottery, why would you need an attorney? The pay-out rules are clearly stated and not subject to dispute. There are tax implications. In addition, if you did not opt for lump-sum, then you would need to work out the payout modalities. So, you would need an accountant that you trust, especially if you have won a lot of money.
I wouldn't get an attorney, I would go to the nearest lotto office and get my money. Drive home, deposit check.
You're going to need a lawyer on an ongoing basis if you win many millions. I'd pick one in my home state that I trust, and I'd let that attorney find the right kind of lawyer in the other state.
The reason lottery winners get an attorney is to protect their interests. Usually they want to do that in their home state. If legal work needs to be done for some reason in the other state, your attorney will assist you in finding one.
Usually, you want one who deals in Estates, Trusts %26 Wills.
You should get an attorney specializing in your home state's laws because that's where you will be keeping/managing/spending the money.
I don't know your situation but if I were you I would go and claim the money first, get the check, deposit the check and then if you really feel you need an attorney, get one in the state that you live in. I'm sure whoever you get will be some crook who will overcharge you for all of his or her services, just because you're a lottery winner. So who needs them really!
If you witness serious health and safety violations at work, would you report them?
Answers:
Yes. I would and have. I'd also be willing to testify about it.
Yes. I would want them corrected so no one would get hurt.
absolutely
Yes. Call the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Admistration) office !
You should, if you can do it confidentially. Unfortunately, companies tend to shoot the messenger.
Hell yeah! Why in the world should you not report that type of stuff? What if you scratch your arm with a rusty nail and a miss a days pay for a tetanis shot?
Yes right away, so no one gets hurt.
Most definatly. I can not put peoples lives at risk.
It's better to report them.
Before someone dies.
Yeah, but don't expect the cavalry to come galloping in. It doesn't do as much good as suggesting safer ways to get the job done. The best response is one that shows cooperation and agreement among workers to solve the problem.
I would report them to the person within the organization who is responsible for correcting them and give them the opportunity to make things right.
Of course. If you don't report them, then you are just as guilty as your employer.
I would.
Yes, but I would follow the chain of command and would not go over any ones' head in an attempt to be a hero or a martyr. There are state and federal laws on the books today that do protect "whistle blowers," but this is still a label that I don't think you would want to be stained with, especially if you value your current job and the work that you do for a living.
Do you enjoy working with serious risks to your health and safety hanging over your head? Okay then.
If You were on the Jury, would you convict if defendent did not testify?
I've noticed most times when defendents' do not testify in court they are found guilty by juries. Would you have doubt of a defendent's innocence if he or she did not testify?
Answers:
Defendants who do not testify on their own behalf are either a) deemed as being "bad witnesses" or b) have something to hide or c) may open a line of questioning their attorneys don't want opened.
I don't think juries base their judgment on that - they have the facts of the case and the testimony provided by everyone that does testify. Juries are instructed to base decisions on evidence provided - not evidence not provided.
I wouldn't consider it at all. And I have served on a jury.
I won't because you should look at the evidence. I mean if i was on trial i might not want to testify because I'm not a great public speaker.
The defendant rarely testifies.
You should convict or acquit based on the facts brought forth in the trial. To convict based on whether or not the defendant testifies or not is completely contrary to our judicial system.
hear their side
depends on the case and situation.
Nope, but then I understand that the defendant does not have to testify and in fact, may do more harm than good even if they are innocent.
You shouldn't even GET on a jury if you have that belief. A competent attorney will question you about your understanding and belief in various constitutional protections a defendant has, including the right not to testify and the fact that you are not to infer anything about guilt or innocence based on whether he does or not. If you don't answer "right" your outta there!
Most defendants don't usually testify. This would open the grounds to any type of questions being asked and any attorney could easily turn their answer into something else.
I would have to hear all the facts and testimonies before i could convict someone. Everyone deserves a fair trial.
they are protected by law and do not have to testify. That would not affect my decision one way or the other.
That wouldn't bother me, but the line of defense had better boil down to "He didn't do it", and not "The police screwed up".
just because the defendant doesn't testify doesn't make them guilty. a defendant who will fall apart under pressure, or who gets confused easily, or has any sort of flaw that will make them look bad on cross-examination, is unlikely to be put on the stand because of the risk of damage to their case. and actually the majority of all defendants are found guilty, i don't think that their is much correlation between whether or not the defendant testifies
If a defendant did not testify in his own case and got away with it, then every criminal will get away with crime.
Sounds like someone who is really guilty and his conscious is catching up with him.
After all, if you didn't commit the crime, what do you have to hide?
At the end of the trial, the jury receives a special instruction that it may NOT draw any inferences from the defendant's failure to testify. To do so would violate the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Many criminals defendants do want to testify, but their attorneys elect otherwise as a matter of strategy. A defendant who testifies on his own behalf does so at the cost of waiving his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and opening himself up to a cross-examination by the prosecutor. It's easy to say that a person who has nothing to hide should answer anything the prosecutor asks without a problem -- but unless you've cross-examined someone or been under a cross-examination yourself, you have no idea how damaging it is even to an innocent person. Even an innocent person can be completely demolished by a skilled prosecutor. This is one of the most difficult experiences anyone can face. Given the fact that most people who get accused of crimes aren't terribly bright or educated, and most people in general can't control their emotions under fire, opening yourself up to full frontal assault in a courtroom isn't a good idea. That's the reason the Framers enacted the right against self-incrimination into the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Answers:
Defendants who do not testify on their own behalf are either a) deemed as being "bad witnesses" or b) have something to hide or c) may open a line of questioning their attorneys don't want opened.
I don't think juries base their judgment on that - they have the facts of the case and the testimony provided by everyone that does testify. Juries are instructed to base decisions on evidence provided - not evidence not provided.
I wouldn't consider it at all. And I have served on a jury.
I won't because you should look at the evidence. I mean if i was on trial i might not want to testify because I'm not a great public speaker.
The defendant rarely testifies.
You should convict or acquit based on the facts brought forth in the trial. To convict based on whether or not the defendant testifies or not is completely contrary to our judicial system.
hear their side
depends on the case and situation.
Nope, but then I understand that the defendant does not have to testify and in fact, may do more harm than good even if they are innocent.
You shouldn't even GET on a jury if you have that belief. A competent attorney will question you about your understanding and belief in various constitutional protections a defendant has, including the right not to testify and the fact that you are not to infer anything about guilt or innocence based on whether he does or not. If you don't answer "right" your outta there!
Most defendants don't usually testify. This would open the grounds to any type of questions being asked and any attorney could easily turn their answer into something else.
I would have to hear all the facts and testimonies before i could convict someone. Everyone deserves a fair trial.
they are protected by law and do not have to testify. That would not affect my decision one way or the other.
That wouldn't bother me, but the line of defense had better boil down to "He didn't do it", and not "The police screwed up".
just because the defendant doesn't testify doesn't make them guilty. a defendant who will fall apart under pressure, or who gets confused easily, or has any sort of flaw that will make them look bad on cross-examination, is unlikely to be put on the stand because of the risk of damage to their case. and actually the majority of all defendants are found guilty, i don't think that their is much correlation between whether or not the defendant testifies
If a defendant did not testify in his own case and got away with it, then every criminal will get away with crime.
Sounds like someone who is really guilty and his conscious is catching up with him.
After all, if you didn't commit the crime, what do you have to hide?
At the end of the trial, the jury receives a special instruction that it may NOT draw any inferences from the defendant's failure to testify. To do so would violate the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Many criminals defendants do want to testify, but their attorneys elect otherwise as a matter of strategy. A defendant who testifies on his own behalf does so at the cost of waiving his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and opening himself up to a cross-examination by the prosecutor. It's easy to say that a person who has nothing to hide should answer anything the prosecutor asks without a problem -- but unless you've cross-examined someone or been under a cross-examination yourself, you have no idea how damaging it is even to an innocent person. Even an innocent person can be completely demolished by a skilled prosecutor. This is one of the most difficult experiences anyone can face. Given the fact that most people who get accused of crimes aren't terribly bright or educated, and most people in general can't control their emotions under fire, opening yourself up to full frontal assault in a courtroom isn't a good idea. That's the reason the Framers enacted the right against self-incrimination into the Bill of Rights in the first place.
If you were able to change 5 laws what would they be?
Answers:
The one concerning eminent domain, the one prohibiting marijuana, the drinking age law, and the one prohibiting US citizens from visiting Cuba. Well, that's four.
The drinking age, the driving age, um.lol idk! can't remember any more! ha ha.
the drinking age law, the gay marriage law, and the welfare law
I make the death penalty mandatory in all 50 states. And it would apply to all child molesters and rapist. I would do away with no fault divorce. I believe in putting the blame where in belongs. I make it legal to hit someone that wronged you. Some people need to have the hell beat out of them. There are so many laws that I disagree with. But my mind has gone blank.
If you were a lawmaker, would you consider workplace bullying to be illegal?
Unfortunately, no laws were made to go against it.
It's the bullying the causes a hostile work environment. And proving work harassment/bullying is very difficult in court. Being bullied results in health issues such as heart disease, stroke, and long-term stress.
Answers:
I would totally make that illegal. I actually dealt with the same issue for over a year at my last job. I even had an investigation opened with HR about it, which basically got nowhere except for retaliation from the bosses. I still have nightmares about that place. No one should have to put up with being treated like that, especially in a professional environment.
Bullying...a purely subjective event.
Thin-skin people just need to get over themselves and realize being delicate and dainty isn't the way to make it in the world these days.
This is very hard to prove - especially if the one doing the dastardly duty is close to the boss or owner.
This type of behavior needs to be stopped in grade school and by the parents!!!!!!
Being bulllying or being assertive? there is a difference between these two terms.
No, if you don't like how you're being treated at work, you should leave or do something about it. If you want to put up with it because you think it will get you somewhere, that's fine, it's your life. I wouldn't put up with it.
It has taken several decades for the Government to bring a legislation for dealing with sexual harassment of women in workplaces, and that too after a set of guidelines were placed by the Supreme court till a legislation is enacted. There is no possibility of work-related harassment, improper blame, harsh words by superiors, catcalling by colleagues, social boycott of a person by concerted action of a group of employees, avoidance of the company of an employee on social, casteist, racist and religion basis etc., which may form the basis for bullying. Any such legislation would be opposed both by employers and unions, the former that it would create chaotic and indisciplined atmosphere on grounds of flimsy grievances and the latter for exposure of schisms amongst workforce, eroding trade unions' bargaining power.
Work-related misdemeanours are to be resolved by resort to the standing orders and disciplinary regulations in force. Psychological paranoia should be shunned and some amount of forbearance to be cultivated, for mental equilibrium. Legislation would not be a better option, in view of innumerable litigations that are likely to arise, defeating the primary objective of workplace.
I would make it illegal. I have had several experiences with bosses that were bullies, but it is hard to prove. It is best to document everything and have witnesses. People that are bullies tend to be master manipulators they know what not to be and to to whom, to appear completely innocent. They know what to say and do to make you feel inadequate, but not in a way that is obvious to others. They try everything to isolate you from others so that you feel that you have no one. I think that it is wrong and I would make a law against it. I think that it is not illegal is because it is more common than people believe and that there would be more lawsuits, than the courts could handle.
I was under the impression that anything that created a hostile work environment was illegal - but you are talking about a very subjective thing. I would be in favor of it as a lawmaker but there would have to be ways to prove it and not just another reason for employees to sue business owners
It's the bullying the causes a hostile work environment. And proving work harassment/bullying is very difficult in court. Being bullied results in health issues such as heart disease, stroke, and long-term stress.
Answers:
I would totally make that illegal. I actually dealt with the same issue for over a year at my last job. I even had an investigation opened with HR about it, which basically got nowhere except for retaliation from the bosses. I still have nightmares about that place. No one should have to put up with being treated like that, especially in a professional environment.
Bullying...a purely subjective event.
Thin-skin people just need to get over themselves and realize being delicate and dainty isn't the way to make it in the world these days.
This is very hard to prove - especially if the one doing the dastardly duty is close to the boss or owner.
This type of behavior needs to be stopped in grade school and by the parents!!!!!!
Being bulllying or being assertive? there is a difference between these two terms.
No, if you don't like how you're being treated at work, you should leave or do something about it. If you want to put up with it because you think it will get you somewhere, that's fine, it's your life. I wouldn't put up with it.
It has taken several decades for the Government to bring a legislation for dealing with sexual harassment of women in workplaces, and that too after a set of guidelines were placed by the Supreme court till a legislation is enacted. There is no possibility of work-related harassment, improper blame, harsh words by superiors, catcalling by colleagues, social boycott of a person by concerted action of a group of employees, avoidance of the company of an employee on social, casteist, racist and religion basis etc., which may form the basis for bullying. Any such legislation would be opposed both by employers and unions, the former that it would create chaotic and indisciplined atmosphere on grounds of flimsy grievances and the latter for exposure of schisms amongst workforce, eroding trade unions' bargaining power.
Work-related misdemeanours are to be resolved by resort to the standing orders and disciplinary regulations in force. Psychological paranoia should be shunned and some amount of forbearance to be cultivated, for mental equilibrium. Legislation would not be a better option, in view of innumerable litigations that are likely to arise, defeating the primary objective of workplace.
I would make it illegal. I have had several experiences with bosses that were bullies, but it is hard to prove. It is best to document everything and have witnesses. People that are bullies tend to be master manipulators they know what not to be and to to whom, to appear completely innocent. They know what to say and do to make you feel inadequate, but not in a way that is obvious to others. They try everything to isolate you from others so that you feel that you have no one. I think that it is wrong and I would make a law against it. I think that it is not illegal is because it is more common than people believe and that there would be more lawsuits, than the courts could handle.
I was under the impression that anything that created a hostile work environment was illegal - but you are talking about a very subjective thing. I would be in favor of it as a lawmaker but there would have to be ways to prove it and not just another reason for employees to sue business owners
If you were a judge how would you rule on this case? Mother of teenage children conviceted of having sex?
with one of her son's classmates. Her son is now being treated for cancer and she is his caretaker. Her husband can not quit his job to be caretaker due to then their insurance would be lost. This is an upper middle class family. She has no other convictions. Would you sentence her to jail, probation and community service, or what? This scenario is going on in a Northern Kentucky suburb of Cincinnati. How would you feel if this was a family member of yours facing sentencing.? Judge threw out an earlier plea deal. How would you feel if your son was the victim of the sexual abuse and was still in the high school.?
Answers:
i am a victim of rape from a family member and i chose not to press charges because i was only 7 years old when it started. i wish now that would of sent im to jail because it happened to others. the mother is a sex offender and she should go to jail. i feel sorry for her son but there are places that deal with the sick. she was not thinking of her son when she had sex with a minor.she should be held accountable for the sex crime she committed.the father can go see the son and make sure he is taken care or while he continues to work.
like i said my heart goes out to the son with cancer but eat about his friend who will have problems in his life because of the crime against him .a crime is a crime and the punishment it for the offender.the son will be taken care of. what if she gets away with it and she continues to act out against other young men. i have no pity for the mom but i do for the son. i will pray for the so ad the boy who is the victim.
GUILTY! JAIL SENTENCE AND PUT HIS SON IN THE HOSPITAL TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE GOVERNMENT!
If it were the father having sex with one of his daughter's teenage friends, he'd go to jail regardless of circumstance.
Fair's fair..throw her *** in jail.
Give her a pass, if it was a man the judge would put him on the rack.
It honestly depends on the kid's age she had sex with. I wouldn't be able to make a judgment without knowing that.
I woud be hopping mad. This world is a crazy place. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Depends on how hott she is. Is she a smokin' hawt MILF with a knock-out body??
If so, then she should get sentenced to do a layout in Playboy, and the high school kid should get "Luckiest Teen of the Year" award.
It is an offence to have sex with an under-aged individual and as such the culprit here deserves to be brought to justice!
If the classmate is over 16, I say let her off with probation and community service, because at that point he can legally consent to sex. IF he is under 16, then a year or two in jail would suffice. She should know better.
But, as we all know if this were the dad he would be going to jail for a couple years regardless. Our sexist society is so unjust.
She should be in prison where she belongs, there should be no room for double standards in cases like this, if it were a man he would be on his way to hell and damnation, where he would belong of course, just like this woman in this case, she should have thought about the consequences before she committed vile acts on a child. She is a SICKO and should be dealt with accordingly. A long prison sentence is called for as a deterrent to these MONSTERS.
Equal under the law. Right? Isn't that what the feminists have been fighting for. Seems the son's friend is a minor. That is statutory rape. Jail time. No questions. If it were a man, he would be gone. No matter what his family situation is.
You asked for a ruling which is nothing more than an opinion. Here it is. Jail sentence as prescribed by the law. She wasn't thinking about her son or the family situation when she had her legs in the air. You play, you pay. Good luck to the son and family.
depends the friend is her sons classmate which means hes probably under 18 in AZ the law reads that its the seduction of a minor so put her in jail. Just because shes having a hard time with her son she decided to have sex with his friend? that's just ignorant.
i would have more compassion if she had robbed the local liquor store to pay for his medical bills or something? (not making that right.) Not to mention there should be some kind of mental anguish law to get her on too because it has to be negatively affecting her son.
No matter what her personal problems are or how tragic they are. It is not acceptable for an adult to have sex with a minor, especially if the minor happens to be her son's classmate. She will have to register as a sexual offender. It is simply not acceptable. She has a sick son who needs her care, she is not an ignorant, poor or uneducated woman, she is married as well.
There will be no plea deal, she has to serve time and get treatment, maybe she was the victim of abuse when she was young, maybe there is a medical problem that has not been detected. Maybe the stress of her situation finally made her look for some release, but she committed a crime. She might also lose custody of her son, maybe she never thought of that.
I cannot tell you how I would feel, because I have not been in that same situation, but we all know what is right and what is wrong. There simply no excuse.
i don't even see why this is in court.
so she had sex with a kid. the kid's probably considering that the best thing that ever happened to him.
Hi.Is this ever a tough one! Ok...this boy's mother had sex with one of his classmates..am I correct on this? Stupid! You see, this is why I question some of these actions from supposedly 'grown mature adults' that are parents themselves! Why would you let your hormones over-ride good morals and ethics? This is so absurd! These certain individuals are selfish in their way of 'thinking'. Don't they ever 'think' on the consequences before acting out?! The 'mother' definitely needs some type of correction but what I'm not too sure. She needs counseling or psychiatric therapy for one. I would suggest since her son needs her for his care taking (my heart goes out to this kid!) unless a grand parent or other relative can step in. My ruling if I was a judge, and since this was her first offense (no other criminal charges prior), I would suggest 4 years of strict probation with the understanding that during those 4 yrs she has to have regulatory sessions with a therapist, 600 hrs of community service, any restitution, and a restraining order to where she could not be around or near (10ft) to this student or his residency or school. And if she violates any of said ruling then she will spend 3/6 yrs in a women's prison for her crime. I feel that this would be fair. My prayers go out to her son. have a blessed day!
A woman that is about 40 should have known better. A son with cancer is no excuse and has nothing to do with the charge.
A crime is a crime! It is unfortunate that her son is sick, and her situation with her family is not good. I would not be lenient because of her situation. The fact stands that she had sex with an under aged kid, which is child molestation and it is bad whether or it is a man or a woman. Yes my decision would be hard considering her circumstances. I am not sure is 1st time offenders get jail time. I hope they do. If they do, I would sentence her to 30 days in jail, 1 year of community service, mandatory counseling for 1 year and make sure that she is registered as a sex offender.
Answers:
i am a victim of rape from a family member and i chose not to press charges because i was only 7 years old when it started. i wish now that would of sent im to jail because it happened to others. the mother is a sex offender and she should go to jail. i feel sorry for her son but there are places that deal with the sick. she was not thinking of her son when she had sex with a minor.she should be held accountable for the sex crime she committed.the father can go see the son and make sure he is taken care or while he continues to work.
like i said my heart goes out to the son with cancer but eat about his friend who will have problems in his life because of the crime against him .a crime is a crime and the punishment it for the offender.the son will be taken care of. what if she gets away with it and she continues to act out against other young men. i have no pity for the mom but i do for the son. i will pray for the so ad the boy who is the victim.
GUILTY! JAIL SENTENCE AND PUT HIS SON IN THE HOSPITAL TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE GOVERNMENT!
If it were the father having sex with one of his daughter's teenage friends, he'd go to jail regardless of circumstance.
Fair's fair..throw her *** in jail.
Give her a pass, if it was a man the judge would put him on the rack.
It honestly depends on the kid's age she had sex with. I wouldn't be able to make a judgment without knowing that.
I woud be hopping mad. This world is a crazy place. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Depends on how hott she is. Is she a smokin' hawt MILF with a knock-out body??
If so, then she should get sentenced to do a layout in Playboy, and the high school kid should get "Luckiest Teen of the Year" award.
It is an offence to have sex with an under-aged individual and as such the culprit here deserves to be brought to justice!
If the classmate is over 16, I say let her off with probation and community service, because at that point he can legally consent to sex. IF he is under 16, then a year or two in jail would suffice. She should know better.
But, as we all know if this were the dad he would be going to jail for a couple years regardless. Our sexist society is so unjust.
She should be in prison where she belongs, there should be no room for double standards in cases like this, if it were a man he would be on his way to hell and damnation, where he would belong of course, just like this woman in this case, she should have thought about the consequences before she committed vile acts on a child. She is a SICKO and should be dealt with accordingly. A long prison sentence is called for as a deterrent to these MONSTERS.
Equal under the law. Right? Isn't that what the feminists have been fighting for. Seems the son's friend is a minor. That is statutory rape. Jail time. No questions. If it were a man, he would be gone. No matter what his family situation is.
You asked for a ruling which is nothing more than an opinion. Here it is. Jail sentence as prescribed by the law. She wasn't thinking about her son or the family situation when she had her legs in the air. You play, you pay. Good luck to the son and family.
depends the friend is her sons classmate which means hes probably under 18 in AZ the law reads that its the seduction of a minor so put her in jail. Just because shes having a hard time with her son she decided to have sex with his friend? that's just ignorant.
i would have more compassion if she had robbed the local liquor store to pay for his medical bills or something? (not making that right.) Not to mention there should be some kind of mental anguish law to get her on too because it has to be negatively affecting her son.
No matter what her personal problems are or how tragic they are. It is not acceptable for an adult to have sex with a minor, especially if the minor happens to be her son's classmate. She will have to register as a sexual offender. It is simply not acceptable. She has a sick son who needs her care, she is not an ignorant, poor or uneducated woman, she is married as well.
There will be no plea deal, she has to serve time and get treatment, maybe she was the victim of abuse when she was young, maybe there is a medical problem that has not been detected. Maybe the stress of her situation finally made her look for some release, but she committed a crime. She might also lose custody of her son, maybe she never thought of that.
I cannot tell you how I would feel, because I have not been in that same situation, but we all know what is right and what is wrong. There simply no excuse.
i don't even see why this is in court.
so she had sex with a kid. the kid's probably considering that the best thing that ever happened to him.
Hi.Is this ever a tough one! Ok...this boy's mother had sex with one of his classmates..am I correct on this? Stupid! You see, this is why I question some of these actions from supposedly 'grown mature adults' that are parents themselves! Why would you let your hormones over-ride good morals and ethics? This is so absurd! These certain individuals are selfish in their way of 'thinking'. Don't they ever 'think' on the consequences before acting out?! The 'mother' definitely needs some type of correction but what I'm not too sure. She needs counseling or psychiatric therapy for one. I would suggest since her son needs her for his care taking (my heart goes out to this kid!) unless a grand parent or other relative can step in. My ruling if I was a judge, and since this was her first offense (no other criminal charges prior), I would suggest 4 years of strict probation with the understanding that during those 4 yrs she has to have regulatory sessions with a therapist, 600 hrs of community service, any restitution, and a restraining order to where she could not be around or near (10ft) to this student or his residency or school. And if she violates any of said ruling then she will spend 3/6 yrs in a women's prison for her crime. I feel that this would be fair. My prayers go out to her son. have a blessed day!
A woman that is about 40 should have known better. A son with cancer is no excuse and has nothing to do with the charge.
A crime is a crime! It is unfortunate that her son is sick, and her situation with her family is not good. I would not be lenient because of her situation. The fact stands that she had sex with an under aged kid, which is child molestation and it is bad whether or it is a man or a woman. Yes my decision would be hard considering her circumstances. I am not sure is 1st time offenders get jail time. I hope they do. If they do, I would sentence her to 30 days in jail, 1 year of community service, mandatory counseling for 1 year and make sure that she is registered as a sex offender.
If you support Gay marriage, what else do you advocate?
Should gays have same rights to adopt?
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight?
Should gays have special civil rights?
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ?
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday?
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights?
You may totally support civil unions, but if you say yes to gay marriage, then, be prepared to say yes to all of the above too. First, the argument for civil unions was for taxation, insurance and inheritance- OK; but after civil unions were agreed, the agenda changed, then, the "cause" was marriage. Make no mistake, if you bend over for gay marriage then be prepared to deal with all the rest of the demands, the agenda will just move to the next item, it will never, ever stop. Yes to all?
Answers:
How about supporting EQUAL and the same rights for all.
How about getting rid of "special" rights, treatment, and protections for everyone while we're at it.
Most of the gay couples I know (they tend to be in thier late 30's and older) have some of the most stable relationships I've encountered, would make great parents, etc.
While we're at it, with all these special rights, support, etc. being handed out, it seems like middle aged white guys like me with kids are loosing out to everybody else.
You should have seen the crap I went through as a single parent in the job market, and with support groups (they're either religion based or for women who hate men). Similar stories with govt. programs (support women more equally than guys).
Why does every gay marriage question have a "slippery slope" addendum, like if you support the right of people to get married if they want to, you also support bestiality, "special rights" and a monument to gay-dom in every town?
yes
its not choice, its how you are born
no just equal rights
yes, if the crime is committed because they are gay
no
no
equality is not an 'agenda', it is a worthy goal of any democracy.
when will it ever end..it's ridiculous
equal rights for ALL Americans...whether I like it or not
I really do not care in the least, i believe in freedom,,,,
You might want to read about how research shows that men who are anti-gay are the ones who are most aroused by gay porn,,,,
edit, socialism is a liberal idea, most of us do want more socialist programs in america... read more about socialism,,,, unless you are wealthy you might want to reconsider your opinion of socialism
I'm in for people that do not judge and care for the well being of all what one thinks is good another not- this is not to be focused on what we should focus on is making choices that might help us all on earth seeing that the oceans are dying and 75% of American kids have ashsma and Africa will be out of water in 5 years and 250 million Africans need to be placed in countries that have water-heck should I go on to worry about who loves each other or is this some sicko's mental problem-think I would waste my valueble time on such little and meaningless bull crap!
Yes, I support gay marriage. As for the other questions:
* Yes, gays have same rights to adopt. There are too many children out there who need loving homes, and statistics have shown that gays are *less* likely to abuse or molest their children. Also, parents should have the right to decide who will take in their children if they die, and their gay brother or sister shouldn't be excluded from that choice if they wish him or her to be the childrens' guardian.
* No, children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight? We don't teach them to be straight now. Why should we change that?
* No, gays shouldn't have *special* civil rights, just *equal* civil rights.
* Criminal acts towards gays are only a "hate crime" if that's the only reason the crime was committed, just as crimes against any other minority. That's already a law.
* No, there shouldn't be a federal "gay" holiday anymore than there's a federal "mother's day" or "father's day."
* Nobody has the right to tell a town what they should erect statues to.
I just think we should all live and let live. It's a waste of time to try to deny rights from any group of people for any reason. They will eventually get what they fight for even if it takes a lot of time for the rest of the country to come around. It doesn't seem fair for any one group of people to make laws for another group of people just based on their certain characteristics. If they aren't criminals then they deserve rights too. Let 'em get hitched it's not my ******* wedding.
The only problem I have is that if they allow same sex couple to have civil unions then why not heterosexual couples? Why do we HAVE to get married to legally care for our partners?
OK Mr Nonsense,
I don't recall being "taught" to be heterosexual in school. There isn't a Heterosexual "Special Bill of Rights" why would you think there would be a gay one? If a crime is commited against a person because of that persons sexual orientation it IS A HATE CRIME. There is no federal "Straight" Holiday, ergo, no "GAY" one either. A memorial in every town? That's just "STUPID". Get over yourself you moron.
1.Yes
2.No, sexual orientantion can not be taught and shouldn't.
3.No same rights as everyone esle
4.Not hate crime, but classed as assualt (e.g beating up gays)
5.No
6.No
There is no agenda you noob.
Yes... they should have the same rights to adopt.. There are millions of children out there who don't have homes and food to eat.. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to have to loving parents regardless of their sexual prefrence
What do you mean children in school should be taught... It's not a choice... How would you feel as a straight person if someone was forcing you to like the same sex...
No special civil rights.. They are humans just like everyone else.. I have gay friends.. they aren't looking for specail treatment.. just to be accepted...
Criminal Acts based on race, religon, sexual prefernce, gender ARE all hate crimes
They are people just like everyone else... They are looking for equality...
Just so you know.. America was found on freedom of religon... we cannot let the Bible dictate our laws... esp in a country where there are a variety of religons... Second of all the Bible also says to love thy neighbor... You cannot play God and tell someone they are wrong or right.. Only God can judges,,, its not your or anyone else's place... Regardless of your personal opnions on this issue.. if you have any maturity you'd understand whether I agree with this or not, there are bigger problems in the world,.. and people have the right to live their lives the way they want to, unless they are harming someone.. which in this case or not
And just one more point I'd like to make.. How do you know for sure Jesus didn't approve of gays... It was actually infedilty he didn't approve of, yet that seems to be going on everywhere, but no one seems to be stopping it.. the gay thing was added to the modern version...
let's see,
Do blacks or amish have an equal right to adopt?
Are children in public school taught which religion is proper, (other than through implication)?
Do I have special civil rights?
Aren't "hate crimes" against gays already chargeable?
Is Civil Rights day a black holiday?
Interesting that when you are considering gay monuments, you choose the word erect and later when describing gay-marriage you say bend over. Are you trying to be funny?
Civil rights are equal rights and if they are not equal for all they are equal for none.
Words can't describe your stupidity...but I'll try.
Being gay is part of the human condition. It is not a choice. Teachers don't teach kids to be straight, do they? Were you taught to be straight? Judging by your hatred and ignorance it wouldn't shock me to hear you're a closet homo.
Gays don't want special civil rights. They want the same rights as everyone. I don't where you get the idea they're requesting "special" rights. Please list them if you're so positive they want them.
Criminal acts against gays are already hate crimes. Just like certain crimes against blacks, whites, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. Do you know anything or do you just like to talk?
Federal gay holiday? You obviously only get your opinions from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It's almost too late to save you if you believe gays are looking for a holiday. What holidays are they requesting? What is the straight holiday?
Towns all over the country have monuments for civil rights for black people, but not every town. Do you oppose those monuments? Judging by your ignorance I would imagine you do.
You are very ignorant and sheltered. You're obviously very scared of gays which begs the question - Are you gay? What else would give you the motivation to criticize others sexual preference?
Either way, you represent the garbage of this country. I'm sure your beliefs on other topics are just as absurd. Enjoy your pathetic life.
If by support Gay Marriage you mean, don't care, and don't think it should be a federal issue, then yes I suppose I support gay marriage.
1) Yes, gays should have the same rights to adopt. I've known 4 kids in my life who were raise by gay couples, and the kids are good people. Incidently, only one of them is gay now.
2) No, but even gay people don't think it's a decision, so that would be ridiculous from everyone's point of view.
3) All civil rights are special, and everyone has them. Now the government would just stop trying to remove some people's...
4) I feel strongly that all crimes are hate crimes, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
5) Sure, why not? I could use another day off work...
6) Hah! You said erect! Those would be really funny headlines in the papers...
7) Why are you packaging all these things together? That's nonsensical. Why would every town in America be forced to erect %26lt;hah!%26gt; a statue to homosexuality just because gay couples were allowed to call themselves married. It's an irrational assumption.
Are you repressing some homosexual urges yourself? The phrase, "if you bend over for gay marriage" makes me wonder.
Gays should have the right to marry. They should have the right to adopt if they are fit to be parents. Since being gay is not a choice, there is no need to teach them whether they should be gay or straight. There's no need to have a federal gay holiday, although, if it was a paid day off, I'm sure most people would be happy to celebrate it. If a town wants to erect a memorial to gay rights, that's the town's business.
Why all this concern about gays? Are you a closet case yourself?
Should gays have same rights to adopt? - Yes, and in fact they have this right today.
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight? - No, lets never mention anything about the dreaded gays in schools. Here is a news flash, people often recognize their straight, bi-sexual or gay identity at or before the onset of puberty. In fact, their bodies teach them their identity all by it's self.
Should gays have special civil rights? - Yes, hate crime portection since as a special group they are targeted simply because of their sexual identity, and only because of this.
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ? - Of course, since the nature of the act is to attack the gayness of the person.
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday? - That is just not making any sense at all. Did I miss something, is there a national straight sexual identity federal holiday on the books?
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights? - Huh, again, the statue would be raised to celebrate as a town cares to. Although, I can not think of too many towns who raise staues or memorials to celebrate the straight lifestyle. On the other hand, today many gay or bi-sexual americans are celebrated in statue or memorials, for their accomplishments as are straight americans. . Examples might be Truman capote or Roy Cohn, should we extinguish recognition of their accomplishments or memorials to their lives simply because they were not straight?
So, yes to tolerance and celebration of indivuduals. Yes to recognizing and allowing allamericans to be in love and get married. No to others who simply will not mind their own business and preach denail or roghts to other citizens because they are not like them, shame on you.
Should gays have same rights to adopt?
Yes. Homosexuals have the same ability (and inability) to parent as heterosexuals. Gay people are often raised by straight people, and vice versa - so it's not like having two gay daddy's will turn a kid gay.
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight?
No. Kids shouldn't learn about sexuality in schools. They should learn about sex in their health class (reproductive systems, stds, contraception, etc.) but they should learn about relationships at home.
Should gays have special civil rights?
No. I don't think anyone should have special civil rights. We are all created equally. Who you decide to have sex with really shouldn't change that.
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ?
No. All crimes are hate crimes.it's the crime not the motivation that should be punishable.
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday?
Gay pride parades have the ability to pretty much shut down a town - New Orleans has a big un. But holidays are usually in rememberance of something great or tragic. I don't think any particular group should just be given a day by the Feds.
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights?
No.
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight?
Should gays have special civil rights?
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ?
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday?
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights?
You may totally support civil unions, but if you say yes to gay marriage, then, be prepared to say yes to all of the above too. First, the argument for civil unions was for taxation, insurance and inheritance- OK; but after civil unions were agreed, the agenda changed, then, the "cause" was marriage. Make no mistake, if you bend over for gay marriage then be prepared to deal with all the rest of the demands, the agenda will just move to the next item, it will never, ever stop. Yes to all?
Answers:
How about supporting EQUAL and the same rights for all.
How about getting rid of "special" rights, treatment, and protections for everyone while we're at it.
Most of the gay couples I know (they tend to be in thier late 30's and older) have some of the most stable relationships I've encountered, would make great parents, etc.
While we're at it, with all these special rights, support, etc. being handed out, it seems like middle aged white guys like me with kids are loosing out to everybody else.
You should have seen the crap I went through as a single parent in the job market, and with support groups (they're either religion based or for women who hate men). Similar stories with govt. programs (support women more equally than guys).
Why does every gay marriage question have a "slippery slope" addendum, like if you support the right of people to get married if they want to, you also support bestiality, "special rights" and a monument to gay-dom in every town?
yes
its not choice, its how you are born
no just equal rights
yes, if the crime is committed because they are gay
no
no
equality is not an 'agenda', it is a worthy goal of any democracy.
when will it ever end..it's ridiculous
equal rights for ALL Americans...whether I like it or not
I really do not care in the least, i believe in freedom,,,,
You might want to read about how research shows that men who are anti-gay are the ones who are most aroused by gay porn,,,,
edit, socialism is a liberal idea, most of us do want more socialist programs in america... read more about socialism,,,, unless you are wealthy you might want to reconsider your opinion of socialism
I'm in for people that do not judge and care for the well being of all what one thinks is good another not- this is not to be focused on what we should focus on is making choices that might help us all on earth seeing that the oceans are dying and 75% of American kids have ashsma and Africa will be out of water in 5 years and 250 million Africans need to be placed in countries that have water-heck should I go on to worry about who loves each other or is this some sicko's mental problem-think I would waste my valueble time on such little and meaningless bull crap!
Yes, I support gay marriage. As for the other questions:
* Yes, gays have same rights to adopt. There are too many children out there who need loving homes, and statistics have shown that gays are *less* likely to abuse or molest their children. Also, parents should have the right to decide who will take in their children if they die, and their gay brother or sister shouldn't be excluded from that choice if they wish him or her to be the childrens' guardian.
* No, children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight? We don't teach them to be straight now. Why should we change that?
* No, gays shouldn't have *special* civil rights, just *equal* civil rights.
* Criminal acts towards gays are only a "hate crime" if that's the only reason the crime was committed, just as crimes against any other minority. That's already a law.
* No, there shouldn't be a federal "gay" holiday anymore than there's a federal "mother's day" or "father's day."
* Nobody has the right to tell a town what they should erect statues to.
I just think we should all live and let live. It's a waste of time to try to deny rights from any group of people for any reason. They will eventually get what they fight for even if it takes a lot of time for the rest of the country to come around. It doesn't seem fair for any one group of people to make laws for another group of people just based on their certain characteristics. If they aren't criminals then they deserve rights too. Let 'em get hitched it's not my ******* wedding.
The only problem I have is that if they allow same sex couple to have civil unions then why not heterosexual couples? Why do we HAVE to get married to legally care for our partners?
OK Mr Nonsense,
I don't recall being "taught" to be heterosexual in school. There isn't a Heterosexual "Special Bill of Rights" why would you think there would be a gay one? If a crime is commited against a person because of that persons sexual orientation it IS A HATE CRIME. There is no federal "Straight" Holiday, ergo, no "GAY" one either. A memorial in every town? That's just "STUPID". Get over yourself you moron.
1.Yes
2.No, sexual orientantion can not be taught and shouldn't.
3.No same rights as everyone esle
4.Not hate crime, but classed as assualt (e.g beating up gays)
5.No
6.No
There is no agenda you noob.
Yes... they should have the same rights to adopt.. There are millions of children out there who don't have homes and food to eat.. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to have to loving parents regardless of their sexual prefrence
What do you mean children in school should be taught... It's not a choice... How would you feel as a straight person if someone was forcing you to like the same sex...
No special civil rights.. They are humans just like everyone else.. I have gay friends.. they aren't looking for specail treatment.. just to be accepted...
Criminal Acts based on race, religon, sexual prefernce, gender ARE all hate crimes
They are people just like everyone else... They are looking for equality...
Just so you know.. America was found on freedom of religon... we cannot let the Bible dictate our laws... esp in a country where there are a variety of religons... Second of all the Bible also says to love thy neighbor... You cannot play God and tell someone they are wrong or right.. Only God can judges,,, its not your or anyone else's place... Regardless of your personal opnions on this issue.. if you have any maturity you'd understand whether I agree with this or not, there are bigger problems in the world,.. and people have the right to live their lives the way they want to, unless they are harming someone.. which in this case or not
And just one more point I'd like to make.. How do you know for sure Jesus didn't approve of gays... It was actually infedilty he didn't approve of, yet that seems to be going on everywhere, but no one seems to be stopping it.. the gay thing was added to the modern version...
let's see,
Do blacks or amish have an equal right to adopt?
Are children in public school taught which religion is proper, (other than through implication)?
Do I have special civil rights?
Aren't "hate crimes" against gays already chargeable?
Is Civil Rights day a black holiday?
Interesting that when you are considering gay monuments, you choose the word erect and later when describing gay-marriage you say bend over. Are you trying to be funny?
Civil rights are equal rights and if they are not equal for all they are equal for none.
Words can't describe your stupidity...but I'll try.
Being gay is part of the human condition. It is not a choice. Teachers don't teach kids to be straight, do they? Were you taught to be straight? Judging by your hatred and ignorance it wouldn't shock me to hear you're a closet homo.
Gays don't want special civil rights. They want the same rights as everyone. I don't where you get the idea they're requesting "special" rights. Please list them if you're so positive they want them.
Criminal acts against gays are already hate crimes. Just like certain crimes against blacks, whites, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. Do you know anything or do you just like to talk?
Federal gay holiday? You obviously only get your opinions from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It's almost too late to save you if you believe gays are looking for a holiday. What holidays are they requesting? What is the straight holiday?
Towns all over the country have monuments for civil rights for black people, but not every town. Do you oppose those monuments? Judging by your ignorance I would imagine you do.
You are very ignorant and sheltered. You're obviously very scared of gays which begs the question - Are you gay? What else would give you the motivation to criticize others sexual preference?
Either way, you represent the garbage of this country. I'm sure your beliefs on other topics are just as absurd. Enjoy your pathetic life.
If by support Gay Marriage you mean, don't care, and don't think it should be a federal issue, then yes I suppose I support gay marriage.
1) Yes, gays should have the same rights to adopt. I've known 4 kids in my life who were raise by gay couples, and the kids are good people. Incidently, only one of them is gay now.
2) No, but even gay people don't think it's a decision, so that would be ridiculous from everyone's point of view.
3) All civil rights are special, and everyone has them. Now the government would just stop trying to remove some people's...
4) I feel strongly that all crimes are hate crimes, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
5) Sure, why not? I could use another day off work...
6) Hah! You said erect! Those would be really funny headlines in the papers...
7) Why are you packaging all these things together? That's nonsensical. Why would every town in America be forced to erect %26lt;hah!%26gt; a statue to homosexuality just because gay couples were allowed to call themselves married. It's an irrational assumption.
Are you repressing some homosexual urges yourself? The phrase, "if you bend over for gay marriage" makes me wonder.
Gays should have the right to marry. They should have the right to adopt if they are fit to be parents. Since being gay is not a choice, there is no need to teach them whether they should be gay or straight. There's no need to have a federal gay holiday, although, if it was a paid day off, I'm sure most people would be happy to celebrate it. If a town wants to erect a memorial to gay rights, that's the town's business.
Why all this concern about gays? Are you a closet case yourself?
Should gays have same rights to adopt? - Yes, and in fact they have this right today.
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight? - No, lets never mention anything about the dreaded gays in schools. Here is a news flash, people often recognize their straight, bi-sexual or gay identity at or before the onset of puberty. In fact, their bodies teach them their identity all by it's self.
Should gays have special civil rights? - Yes, hate crime portection since as a special group they are targeted simply because of their sexual identity, and only because of this.
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ? - Of course, since the nature of the act is to attack the gayness of the person.
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday? - That is just not making any sense at all. Did I miss something, is there a national straight sexual identity federal holiday on the books?
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights? - Huh, again, the statue would be raised to celebrate as a town cares to. Although, I can not think of too many towns who raise staues or memorials to celebrate the straight lifestyle. On the other hand, today many gay or bi-sexual americans are celebrated in statue or memorials, for their accomplishments as are straight americans. . Examples might be Truman capote or Roy Cohn, should we extinguish recognition of their accomplishments or memorials to their lives simply because they were not straight?
So, yes to tolerance and celebration of indivuduals. Yes to recognizing and allowing allamericans to be in love and get married. No to others who simply will not mind their own business and preach denail or roghts to other citizens because they are not like them, shame on you.
Should gays have same rights to adopt?
Yes. Homosexuals have the same ability (and inability) to parent as heterosexuals. Gay people are often raised by straight people, and vice versa - so it's not like having two gay daddy's will turn a kid gay.
Should children in school be taught to decide whether to be gay or straight?
No. Kids shouldn't learn about sexuality in schools. They should learn about sex in their health class (reproductive systems, stds, contraception, etc.) but they should learn about relationships at home.
Should gays have special civil rights?
No. I don't think anyone should have special civil rights. We are all created equally. Who you decide to have sex with really shouldn't change that.
Criminal acts towards gays be a "hate crime" ?
No. All crimes are hate crimes.it's the crime not the motivation that should be punishable.
Should there be a federal "gay" holiday?
Gay pride parades have the ability to pretty much shut down a town - New Orleans has a big un. But holidays are usually in rememberance of something great or tragic. I don't think any particular group should just be given a day by the Feds.
Should every town erect a statue or memorial to gay rights?
No.
If you sue someone in civil court can you get legal fees payed for also?
Answers:
Sometimes.
Generally, you have to win.
The fees have to meet the judge's idea of "reasonable".
For some causes of action, the statutes limit the fees that can be awarded, either in dollar amounts or as a percent of the judgement. That limitation applies to the award, not to what the attorney can charge the client.
Sometimes you can. A judge may grant legal fees if there was a settlement offered and the jury trial resulted in a lower settlement.
This is probably to keep the court docket to a workable level. This way people do not tie up the courts that can easily be settled out of court.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but generally the person who wins can get some of their fees paid for by whoever loses.
The amount recovered is usually somewhere between the amount of filing fees, and up to about 1/3 of the total fees.
In rare circumstances (and only in courts that allow it) you can recover the whole amount spent.
In some circumstances, no fees will be recovered.
Yes, most of the time, if you win. Depends where you are.
If you suddenly became homeless would child protective services take your child from you?
or would they assist you with getting shelter
Answers:
In Maryland it is against the law to take a child away because of homelessness. Learn your rights and seek help. good luck
Of course you would get help. They wouldn't let kids live in alleys and dumpsters.
are you homeless
i think theyd snatch ur kid untill you can prove that you can take care of them. Get a job.
It depends on where you live, in most jurisdictions they would remove the child from your care, because you cannot provide in all senses that a parent should in the best interest of the child.
And thats what CPS is for.. to look out for the best interest of the child.
If you feel like you are going to be homeless suddenly, maybe you should contact your local welfare office. They might be able to help you to avoid it.
In some states CPS automatically takes the kid; in other states they are obligated to help you find shelter.
Answers:
In Maryland it is against the law to take a child away because of homelessness. Learn your rights and seek help. good luck
Of course you would get help. They wouldn't let kids live in alleys and dumpsters.
are you homeless
i think theyd snatch ur kid untill you can prove that you can take care of them. Get a job.
It depends on where you live, in most jurisdictions they would remove the child from your care, because you cannot provide in all senses that a parent should in the best interest of the child.
And thats what CPS is for.. to look out for the best interest of the child.
If you feel like you are going to be homeless suddenly, maybe you should contact your local welfare office. They might be able to help you to avoid it.
In some states CPS automatically takes the kid; in other states they are obligated to help you find shelter.
If you signed up for child support and cancelled it before you start, would you beable to reapply?
Answers:
If you signed off any anything, more than likely, you would need to get an attorney and start the entire process all over again and you case would be looked as cynically by any Judge and they may question your ability to reason and possibly place the child(ren) with the other parent or even in a foster home if it was determined that you lacked proper judgement in "cancelling" a child support order that would be in the best interest of your child(rens) well being over what is best or more convenient for you (especially if your sole motivation for dropping the order was to get back with the deadbeat ex).
What do you mean signed up for child suppoert? It is not something you sign up for, the non-custodial parent pays it to the custodial parent.
If you have a child, and you are not with the father of that child, he is still by law, financially responsible for it. You need to go to your local court house/family services office and have them help you get it started, and dont cancel it again! Some guys will try and sweet talk their babies momma just to get them to drop the support case, then start with their stupid business again, running around, not coming home...the usual bs that they do.stand strong for your baby and for yourself, or you will find yourself with another baby! Get smart girl, there are too many programs out there to help single mothers, apartments, food, education, go ask for help!
if you are eligible to sign up for child support then you do that part so that you can get what you are entitled to and dont gancel it because they might give you a hard time the next time you try to get what you have coming for child support friend ok and thank you use your better judgment in that case
Yes you can reapply. Unless you recieve TANF and/or medicaid, your case cannot be closed. Otherwise, you can close and reopen a case by filling out the application with updated information.
If you sign a plea agreement with your lawyer present-can a different lawyer get it changed?
Someone I know signed a plea agreement in his lawyer's presence and entered it into court. The sentencing is soon, and he now has a new lawyer and is trying to change the plea. Can he do this?
Answers:
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances of the plea. For example, did his former lawyer fail to advise him properly? Did the former lawyer coerce him to sign? Or was it done freely and voluntarily without duress or coercion?
The new lawyer can try to do this if he has proper grounds, but generally it will not suceed. It's a strategy to buy time while working on the better arguments.
ask them
you have to show some valid background with a good reason for that
Answers:
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances of the plea. For example, did his former lawyer fail to advise him properly? Did the former lawyer coerce him to sign? Or was it done freely and voluntarily without duress or coercion?
The new lawyer can try to do this if he has proper grounds, but generally it will not suceed. It's a strategy to buy time while working on the better arguments.
ask them
you have to show some valid background with a good reason for that
If you seen someone selling tobacco or alcohol to a minor would you report it?
So this little old man working in a carry out sells two girls who look to be in their very early teens (13 at the most) cigarettes. They were actually flirting around with grandpa to get him to do it, and he did.
Should i report it? Or what? And who to?
I wonder if he got lucky that night..EEEWWWWW.
Answers:
Yes, they are very young! I guess you could have called the police but basically they couldn't have done anything unless they seen it happening.
You could tell the owner of the store to be careful, he will most likely get fined if the alcohol/tobacco (?) (group) get involved. Maybe at least Gramps will lose his job!
I would say yes just because if they know or saw you, they might involve you to bring you down.
Yes, do the right thing.
no, because i wouldnt have wanted it done to me when i was a minor.
I wouldn't, just because he sold cigarettes is no reason to go thinking that he is a child molester or something. You don't even know if that's the case, and those type of assumptions, lead to accusations which can easily ruin someones life, even if they are innocent. Also I doubt any 13 year old girls would get in bed with some old man just for cigarettes.
Also the decision to smoke is a person's not the store owner's, if those girls want to smoke, that is their choice, and even though the law hold the seller responsible, i don't think it should be that way.
Not the first time. I would mention it to them and make it clear that if I saw it it a second time I would report it.
Should i report it? Or what? And who to?
I wonder if he got lucky that night..EEEWWWWW.
Answers:
Yes, they are very young! I guess you could have called the police but basically they couldn't have done anything unless they seen it happening.
You could tell the owner of the store to be careful, he will most likely get fined if the alcohol/tobacco (?) (group) get involved. Maybe at least Gramps will lose his job!
I would say yes just because if they know or saw you, they might involve you to bring you down.
Yes, do the right thing.
no, because i wouldnt have wanted it done to me when i was a minor.
I wouldn't, just because he sold cigarettes is no reason to go thinking that he is a child molester or something. You don't even know if that's the case, and those type of assumptions, lead to accusations which can easily ruin someones life, even if they are innocent. Also I doubt any 13 year old girls would get in bed with some old man just for cigarettes.
Also the decision to smoke is a person's not the store owner's, if those girls want to smoke, that is their choice, and even though the law hold the seller responsible, i don't think it should be that way.
Not the first time. I would mention it to them and make it clear that if I saw it it a second time I would report it.
If you recieve questions in the mail asking if you or someone has been a crime victim, you are...?
most likely chosen to participate in.
A. cohort research
B. aggregate data research
C. survey research
D. experimental research
Answers:
C. Survey research
survey that's only if they are just asking that one question, if there is an action involved based on your answer, it could be something else
A. cohort research
B. aggregate data research
C. survey research
D. experimental research
Answers:
C. Survey research
survey that's only if they are just asking that one question, if there is an action involved based on your answer, it could be something else
If you plead guilty ??
Can you go back and re plead not guilty ?
Answers:
Not unless there is some circumstance such as a mental defect or coercion by an official that made you plead guilty
I don't think that you can...not that it would make a lick of sense. It's already documented that there was a guilty plea.
Answers:
Not unless there is some circumstance such as a mental defect or coercion by an official that made you plead guilty
I don't think that you can...not that it would make a lick of sense. It's already documented that there was a guilty plea.
If you live legally in this country (USA) but are not allowed to work legally, but you got a job and got payed
by check, could you be able to cash it or deposit it into a bank account? could you, and or should you file taxes? what happend if you didn't? What if you did file would something happend since you worked without authorization?
Answers:
I think you are referring to people who are here on visa's etc, if you are , then if they are caught working they will be deported and barred from this country for a min of 10 years before they can apply for a visa again,
I'm kinda confused with the not legally allowed to work but take the check to the bank it was drawn on and cash it. If you have a bank account, you can put it in there. This is called "paid under the table" As for filing, I haven't got a clue, just remember Uncle Sam wants all that is due him.
Huh? If you live legally in the U.S. then how could you not be allowed to work legally?
If you don't live here legally then you can't work legally. You sound like an illegal immigrant.
the real answer is since they do not have the proper to documents to work they use forged ones with someone elses social. Nothing really happens if you dont file your taxes for a while they leave the money in there they dont get it back
So which is it. Are you here legally or not?
Answers:
I think you are referring to people who are here on visa's etc, if you are , then if they are caught working they will be deported and barred from this country for a min of 10 years before they can apply for a visa again,
I'm kinda confused with the not legally allowed to work but take the check to the bank it was drawn on and cash it. If you have a bank account, you can put it in there. This is called "paid under the table" As for filing, I haven't got a clue, just remember Uncle Sam wants all that is due him.
Huh? If you live legally in the U.S. then how could you not be allowed to work legally?
If you don't live here legally then you can't work legally. You sound like an illegal immigrant.
the real answer is since they do not have the proper to documents to work they use forged ones with someone elses social. Nothing really happens if you dont file your taxes for a while they leave the money in there they dont get it back
So which is it. Are you here legally or not?
If you know that your death will come to you after 5 minutes , will you be ready to face it ?
Answers:
it will not matter how you feel because there would be nothing you could do about it
Bring it.
2 points..
Yes!
I'm headed for the streets of gold! : )
doesn't sound like I would have much of a choice ...
so ... sure
Fear is for the weak. Contemplating you own death is a fools gambit. Why ask, you'll be dead momentarily anyhow?
No but I guess I wouldnt have a choice would I
Gladly. Looking forward to seeing my daughter again!
Do I have a choice?
Yes, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, my Saviour.
'Ready'? Ready how? How exactly are you defining 'ready' in this instance? I'd personally be REALLY upset, is that what you mean?
A Zen monk was being chased through the forest by a tiger, and he came to the edge of a steep precipice. With no other way to escape, he contemplated the decision of whether to leap to his sure death or to face the tiger unarmed. Suddenly, he noticed a ripened fruit hanging from a nearby tree branch, and he picked it. He tasted it, and it was sweet.
I'm too young to die! :-P
I think I would be upset but if it doesn't hurt when I passover, then alright.
If you knew that you were going to get shafted by your employer what would you do?
Lets say that you had a pretty good idea about their standard toward handling people in your situation. Would you quit prematurely like they want you to do or would you role with the the punches and hope they make a legal blunder? With regard to the situation, I have a lawyer waiting in the flanks for them to fire me. It is pretty much standard proceedure to fire people after they have been injured at work. They have agreed to work with me on paper but the rumor is that they plan on putting me on a job that I may not be able to do.
Answers:
As someone who knew they were getting fired 4 months before it happened...
I say keep the lawyer, make sure you document everything... just because it looks ok to the normal eye, lawyer might find something illegal or discriminatory, I say hold out!. Dont give up JUST yet... who knows... you might be able to do the job, make them all look stupid and make money in the process.
If your not comfortable with that, i'd suggest taking this time to find another job. "Tarzan principle" Dont let go of one vine before you have a firm grasp on another.
In the mean time, mind your Ps and Qs and dont give them an excuse to get rid of you. (Yeah, i know, easier said than done for some)
Dam them, stay there, and get yourself a disability advocate in addition to your legal counsel. They will be able to make sure you get the accommodations required for the disabled, permanent or temporary, it does not matter. All employers, agencies, businesses must conform to the American Disability Act no exceptions ! Good luck and get well soon !
Answers:
As someone who knew they were getting fired 4 months before it happened...
I say keep the lawyer, make sure you document everything... just because it looks ok to the normal eye, lawyer might find something illegal or discriminatory, I say hold out!. Dont give up JUST yet... who knows... you might be able to do the job, make them all look stupid and make money in the process.
If your not comfortable with that, i'd suggest taking this time to find another job. "Tarzan principle" Dont let go of one vine before you have a firm grasp on another.
In the mean time, mind your Ps and Qs and dont give them an excuse to get rid of you. (Yeah, i know, easier said than done for some)
Dam them, stay there, and get yourself a disability advocate in addition to your legal counsel. They will be able to make sure you get the accommodations required for the disabled, permanent or temporary, it does not matter. All employers, agencies, businesses must conform to the American Disability Act no exceptions ! Good luck and get well soon !
If you kill some body that killed your mom or brother, is it wrong to get revenge?
If you kill some body that killed your mom or brother, is it wrong to get revenge after all in the bible it says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. So is it wrong to get revenge? And if so then why is it okay for the criminal justice system to orders captial punishment? And after all the justice system is just getting revenge too. But this country is built off god...we do say " in god we trust" so please tell me what you think?
Answers:
"vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" that being said you hurt my family you have destroyed my hope for happiness, so all bets are off. I'm coming for you.
its not that its wrong..just against the law
and think if someone did that (suppose)there family member would keep doing the same thing...a chain of wrongful revenge
reguardless of your personal morals, vigilantism is illegal. Some states have the death penalty, some do not.
You can't be serious..Unless in the case of self defense of yourself or someone else, killing, otherwise known as murder is pretty much illegal under all circumstances regardless of what the bible says. We go by the constitution in setting laws...
The bible also says turn the other cheek so maybe revenge isn't such a good idea. There is a difference between exacting revenge upon somebody who has wronged you and the justice system carrying out a punishment for a crime.
This is what I think, however many people disagree with me..The Bible does state "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but in the new testiment, Jesus said "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek". BUT if someone killed one of my parents, a sibling or one of my kids, the human nature in me may disagree and get even. I couldnt see myself turning the other cheek in that situation. For less serious offenses, I have chosen to forgive people and it changed not only myslef it also changed the people I forgave. Revenge has never gotten me anywhere, though.
True the country was founded on Christianity, BUT we do not base our laws off of the Bible and what it says. It would just be stupid. Can you imagine the government punishing someone for lying, or not respecting your parents, or even adultery as the Ten Commandments (that were handed down to Moses by God if i remember correctly) states?
But to answer your question, lawfully yes it is wrong. morally, i don't think so..but people do get SOME sort of justice when the court finds that person guilty.
revenge is personal and people that want it aren't thinking straight, where as when a court orders it they should have a more clear thought process than a family member of the victim, that and it is usually a group who decides the individuals guilt rather than the the victims family member deciding guilt or innocence
see, if you kill someone that killed you r mom and bro, it means that it is vigilante justice. that is against the law, simply because that would enable you go go around killing the person whom you think killed your family. however, through the legal system, you get to prove that the person is guilty beyond doubt of killing your family. this way, innocent people would not accidentally get killed. it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent guy. that is the principle on which the law works.
in the case of capital punishment, the law is merely meting out justice. child rapers cannot be allowed to wander around unchecked, so they throw them in jail. i don't know about you, but i would not want my tax money to support these disgusting specimens, so the death penalty was introduced so that wastes of oxygen would not suck up the taxpayers' money.
besides, as you pointed out yourself, capital punishment is acceptable according to the bible. so the country is holding up the principle of "in god we trust" whether or not they implement capital punishment.
The bible also says "Vengeance is Mine' sayeth the Lord." However, the criminal justice system is NOT necessarily a continuation of the Judeo-Christian ethic; it is based on a constitution which incorporates some of their ideals and some common rules for getting along with each other. Those who continually or radically show their inability to get along with others are punished. If they can't or won't learn, society is obligated to protect its members from these asocial or antisocial beings. Death is a permanent solution to the problem.
I think that if you murder the person who murdered your mom or brother, then you have become what he/she (the murderer anyway) is. You have sunk to their level. I also think that at that point, it should be left up to a judge/jury to decide because you are emotionally not stable enough to make the decision at such a grievous time.
And what about you, you murder the murderer, and leave loved ones behind, and can be no help to them, and even put more grief on them to have to watch you stand trial and be sentenced for murdering the murderer. You then have to ask yourself, was the revenge worth facing the death penalty or life in prison? Now YOU will be imprisoned with murderers, rapists, chi-mo's etc.
Premeditated murder = A lot of jail time and possibly death penalty.
Answers:
"vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" that being said you hurt my family you have destroyed my hope for happiness, so all bets are off. I'm coming for you.
its not that its wrong..just against the law
and think if someone did that (suppose)there family member would keep doing the same thing...a chain of wrongful revenge
reguardless of your personal morals, vigilantism is illegal. Some states have the death penalty, some do not.
You can't be serious..Unless in the case of self defense of yourself or someone else, killing, otherwise known as murder is pretty much illegal under all circumstances regardless of what the bible says. We go by the constitution in setting laws...
The bible also says turn the other cheek so maybe revenge isn't such a good idea. There is a difference between exacting revenge upon somebody who has wronged you and the justice system carrying out a punishment for a crime.
This is what I think, however many people disagree with me..The Bible does state "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but in the new testiment, Jesus said "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek". BUT if someone killed one of my parents, a sibling or one of my kids, the human nature in me may disagree and get even. I couldnt see myself turning the other cheek in that situation. For less serious offenses, I have chosen to forgive people and it changed not only myslef it also changed the people I forgave. Revenge has never gotten me anywhere, though.
True the country was founded on Christianity, BUT we do not base our laws off of the Bible and what it says. It would just be stupid. Can you imagine the government punishing someone for lying, or not respecting your parents, or even adultery as the Ten Commandments (that were handed down to Moses by God if i remember correctly) states?
But to answer your question, lawfully yes it is wrong. morally, i don't think so..but people do get SOME sort of justice when the court finds that person guilty.
revenge is personal and people that want it aren't thinking straight, where as when a court orders it they should have a more clear thought process than a family member of the victim, that and it is usually a group who decides the individuals guilt rather than the the victims family member deciding guilt or innocence
see, if you kill someone that killed you r mom and bro, it means that it is vigilante justice. that is against the law, simply because that would enable you go go around killing the person whom you think killed your family. however, through the legal system, you get to prove that the person is guilty beyond doubt of killing your family. this way, innocent people would not accidentally get killed. it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent guy. that is the principle on which the law works.
in the case of capital punishment, the law is merely meting out justice. child rapers cannot be allowed to wander around unchecked, so they throw them in jail. i don't know about you, but i would not want my tax money to support these disgusting specimens, so the death penalty was introduced so that wastes of oxygen would not suck up the taxpayers' money.
besides, as you pointed out yourself, capital punishment is acceptable according to the bible. so the country is holding up the principle of "in god we trust" whether or not they implement capital punishment.
The bible also says "Vengeance is Mine' sayeth the Lord." However, the criminal justice system is NOT necessarily a continuation of the Judeo-Christian ethic; it is based on a constitution which incorporates some of their ideals and some common rules for getting along with each other. Those who continually or radically show their inability to get along with others are punished. If they can't or won't learn, society is obligated to protect its members from these asocial or antisocial beings. Death is a permanent solution to the problem.
I think that if you murder the person who murdered your mom or brother, then you have become what he/she (the murderer anyway) is. You have sunk to their level. I also think that at that point, it should be left up to a judge/jury to decide because you are emotionally not stable enough to make the decision at such a grievous time.
And what about you, you murder the murderer, and leave loved ones behind, and can be no help to them, and even put more grief on them to have to watch you stand trial and be sentenced for murdering the murderer. You then have to ask yourself, was the revenge worth facing the death penalty or life in prison? Now YOU will be imprisoned with murderers, rapists, chi-mo's etc.
Premeditated murder = A lot of jail time and possibly death penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)