# chat_history

session_id: 839f81b2-e65d-411b-9b8f-f7c4349aff85
question: Hi
sources: []
timestamp: 2025-08-10T16:09:10.664504
answer:
  I couldn't find specific legal information for your question about drunk driving accidents. However, I can provide some general legal context: Drunk driving causing accidents is typically punished more severely than just drunk driving because it involves actual harm or damage to others, which increases the criminal liability and potential penalties. For specific legal advice, please consult with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.


session_id: 53ff19db-55f9-433e-a461-58bd4bf2c5db
question: Hi
timestamp: 2025-08-10T16:34:07.708407
answer:
  I apologize, but I encountered an error while generating a response. Please try again or rephrase your question.

sources:
  [{"content": "Answer 1: <p>Because prosecutions on indictment are commenced in the name of the Crown (\u201cR\u201d) in respect of crimes which were historically regarded as offences against the monarch. The law relating to these crimes is ancient and was described in works like Hale\u2019s <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Placitorum_Coron%C3%A6\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Pleas of the Crown</a></em> (1736) and Foster\u2019s <em><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Crown_Law\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Crown Law</a></em> (1762).</p>\n<p>In contrast, summary criminal procedure is a more recent development which has its origin in civil proceedings between subjects. These prosecutions were commenced in the name of an individual police officer or other informant, in inferior courts which were subject to review by the \u201c<a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_court\" rel=\"noreferrer\">royal courts</a>.\u201d</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 231, "content_length": 899}, "distance": 0.5149276256561279, "relevance_score": 0.48507237434387207}, {"content": "or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services,\nwithout such person's prior consent, . . . shall be liable for any\ndamages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result\nthereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the\nperson who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party\nor parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty\ndollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a\nresult of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized\nuse that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in\ncomputing the actual damages. In establishing such profits, the\ninjured party or parties are required to present proof only of the\ngross revenue attributable to such use, and the person who violated\nthis section is required to prove his or her deductible expenses.\nPunitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties.", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 150, "content_length": 945}, "distance": 0.5181037187576294, "relevance_score": 0.4818962812423706}, {"content": "Question Title: Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?", "metadata": {"content_length": 145, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.5342187881469727, "relevance_score": 0.46578121185302734}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Causing the death of another under the conditions of article 121-3 by carelessness, imprudence, negligence, or failing to obey a duty of prudence or safety given by the law or local regulation, is involuntary homicide punished by [a maximum of] three years in jail and \u20ac45 000 fine.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The theft charge itself and its sentence should not be affected (but that\u2019s likely to be small change compared to the sentence for involuntary homicide anyway).</p>\n<p>There is a reference to <a href=\"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006417208\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">article 121-3</a>. That article establishes the general principle of <em>mens rea</em> (no crime without the intention to commit it), but it also introduces narrow exceptions that apply here (basically, strict liability for &quot;reckless endangerement&quot;-type charges).</p>\n<h2>Bob is also civilly liable</h2>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 944, "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 274}, "distance": 0.5372507572174072, "relevance_score": 0.4627492427825928}, {"content": "<ul>\n<li>There is no intent to kill</li>\n<li>The act is criminal and malicious</li>\n<li>The consequences are reasonably foreseeable</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The offense would be a type of <strong>constructive manslaughter</strong>, where a crime not intended to kill or cause bodily harm results in death. In the UK this is also known as an <em>unlawful act manslaughter</em>. The perpetrator of a premeditated crime is held responsible not only for the intended consequences, but also for foreseeable incidental ones, albeit at a reduced <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability\" rel=\"noreferrer\">degree of culpability</a>.</p>\n<p>This doctrine is established in both civil and common law, and will apply in broadly similar ways, with different local names, usually variations on unintended homicide, in most civil law jurisdictions as well.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 274, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 845}, "distance": 0.5453485250473022, "relevance_score": 0.45465147495269775}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Paying a policeman to investigate a criminal or arrest someone that was breaking the law would be almost the textbook example of this crime.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 161, "original_index": 225, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11}, "distance": 0.5549971461296082, "relevance_score": 0.44500285387039185}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<hr />\n<p><strong>ORIGINAL ANSWER</strong></p>\n<p><strong>YES</strong></p>\n<p>A breach of the Regulations is a summary offence.  As such, a suspect may be arrested if all the relevant conditions at <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 24</a> Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are met.</p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/14/section/67?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 67</a> Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Penalty for breach of regulations.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 608, "original_index": 158, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5637403726577759, "relevance_score": 0.4362596273422241}, {"content": "(1884), 14 Q.B.D. 273, involving cannibalism on the high seas, is often cited as establishing the unavailability of the defence of necessity for homicide, although the case is not conclusive:  see R. Card, Card Cross and Jones: Criminal Law (12th ed. 1992), at p. 532; <em>Smith &amp; Hogan: Criminal Law</em>, <em>supra</em>, at pp. 249 and 251.  The Law Reform Commission of Canada has suggested the defence should not be available for a person who intentionally kills or seriously harms another person:  <em>Report on Recodifying Criminal Law</em> (1987), at p. 36.   <strong>American jurisdictions are divided on this question, with a number of them denying the necessity defence for murder</strong>:  P. H. Robinson, <em>Criminal Law Defenses</em> (1984), vol. 2, at pp. 63-65; see also <em>United States v. Holmes</em>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383).  The American <em>Model Penal Code</em> proposes that the defence of necessity would be available for homicide:  American", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 123, "content_length": 996, "chunk_index": 6}, "distance": 0.5640837550163269, "relevance_score": 0.4359162449836731}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p>(d) in the course of a business \u2014</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i)sells or lets for hire, or</p>\n<p>(ii)offers or exposes for sale or hire, or</p>\n<p>(iii)exhibits in public, or</p>\n<p>(iv)distributes, or</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,</li>\n</ul>\n<p>an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d)(iv) or (e) is liable\u2014</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or\u00a0a fine, or both;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b) <strong>on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding\u00a0ten years, or both.</strong></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 891, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 42, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.5678099393844604, "relevance_score": 0.43219006061553955}, {"content": "<p>A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed</p>\n<p>[it] is based on the prosecutor\u2019s objective assessment of the evidence [which] means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury [etc] is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. <strong>This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>The Public Interest Stage</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The prosecutor must consider a number of factors, including: the seriousness and circumstances of the offence, the suspect's age and culpability, whether a prosecution is a proportionate response, and whether sensitive intelligence sources need protecting.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><strong>The Threshold Test</strong></a></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "content_length": 926, "original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5707187652587891, "relevance_score": 0.42928123474121094}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p>(b) <strong>on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding\u00a0ten years, or both.</strong></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The above emboldened provisions establish that certain types of copyright infringement are indictable offences, which brings in to play <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47/section/1?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 1</a> Criminal Attempts Act 1981:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>1 Attempting to commit an offence.</p>\n<p>(1) If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>(4) This section applies to any offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence, other than\u2014</p>\n<p>[<em>list of excluded offences omitting as not relevant to the question</em>]</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 42, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 992, "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.5728887319564819, "relevance_score": 0.42711126804351807}, {"content": "Answer 4: <h2>why would that matter?</h2>\n<p>Lawmakers are not stupid, that\u2019s why in every jurisdiction I know of, the offence is <strong>holding</strong> the phone.</p>\n\n\nTags: legal-terms", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 11, "original_index": 209, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 189, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5738064050674438, "relevance_score": 0.42619359493255615}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p>which has or have a tendency to pervert; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>which is or are intended to pervert;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the course of public justice.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or\u00a0</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>proceedings have started or are about to start.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p><sub>Answer based on the assumption that as per hypothetical legal / law school questions in the UK: the facts are as stated i.e. there is no need for me to consider whether the killing of Victim 2 is self defence or not.</sub></p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 960, "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107}, "distance": 0.5746061205863953, "relevance_score": 0.42539387941360474}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Criminal indictments used to use much more detailed and flowery language than they do now. I was surprised to learn, while looking at some early U.S. documents, that they had retained a feature of indictments from English common law. For some crimes, the accused was said to have done the deeds</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>not having the fear of God before his eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>For example, this was said of Aaron Burr in three documents from New Jersey, New York, and the Federal courts:</p>\n<ol>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 576, "original_index": 25, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5781700611114502, "relevance_score": 0.4218299388885498}, {"content": "<p>Realistically, the courts have not drawn a rigid line between the strict cases of agency, and those of independent contract, license, and lease. Many of the elements which have given rise to the doctrine of respondeat superior, may also be evident in factual settings other than that of a technical employer-employee relationship. <strong>When the right and ability to supervise coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials</strong> \u2014 even in the absence of actual knowledge that the copyright monopoly is being impaired \u2014 the purposes of copyright law may be best effectuated by the imposition of liability upon the beneficiary of that exploitation \u2026</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 727, "original_index": 188, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5806028842926025, "relevance_score": 0.41939711570739746}, {"content": "</ol>\n<p>I believe that criminal indictments do not currently contain this language, but a web search showed several other American examples from later in the nineteenth century. Evidently this stopped at some point, but when and why? (For England and Wales, this would have happened <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/5-6/90/enacted\" rel=\"noreferrer\">no later than 1915</a>, and indictments today are quite straightforward in content.)</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 456, "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 25}, "distance": 0.5829365253448486, "relevance_score": 0.41706347465515137}, {"content": "<p>A threat to sue from a person noted from having sued others with some frequency would usually be grounds for concern.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 124, "original_index": 252, "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.584205150604248, "relevance_score": 0.41579484939575195}, {"content": "<p>The system of tiered offenses with different culpability requirements is about as strong a deterrent as the public can accept. It allows handing out the first tier of penalties in as many situations as possible, while allowing for heavier charges when there are consequences or aggravating factors.</p>\n<p>Not applying the penalty for the worst possible consequences for every act also avoids &quot;in for a penny, in for a pound&quot; perverse incentives, prompting one to exercise whatever amount of caution they still can.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 532, "original_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5849428176879883, "relevance_score": 0.4150571823120117}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>In the Bay Area, there is a problem called &quot;sideshows&quot;, where youths do dangerous stunts with cars (like donuts) on public streets, usually at an intersection <a href=\"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/7/7f/SanJoseSideshow-Americancarculture-2021-7-11.webm/SanJoseSideshow-Americancarculture-2021-7-11.webm.720p.vp9.webm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">(example video)</a>. California, wanting to crackdown on this, has put out increasingly harsh laws. But some of these laws seem to have gone over the line to me. For example, I heard on ABC news that it is now illegal to spectate or record a sideshow. It is punishable by up to 6 months in prison or a $1000 fine.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 176, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 708, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.5873511433601379, "relevance_score": 0.41264885663986206}, {"content": "to a total of 4 points for this item; and,</p>\n<p>(d)Add 2 points if the instant offense is a revocation accompanied by\na new state or federal conviction, or if the instant offense occurred\nwhile under federal supervision including incarceration, probation,\nparole or supervised release.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This together with the severity of the crime are major factors.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"4\">\n<li>History of violence. In assessing the violent nature of prior documented findings of guilt (convictions and supervised release\nviolations), policy distinguishes between \u201cserious\u201d and \u201cminor\u201d\nincidents as well as time relative to when the case is being reviewed.\nThis category does not factor in the instant offense and can change\nover time based on an offender\u2019s institutional adjustment (i.e.,\nviolence in the BOP can result in assignment of points).</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The rule provides with regard to this factor:</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 108, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 938}, "distance": 0.588238000869751, "relevance_score": 0.411761999130249}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>Yes. A violation of basically any FCC regulation is a criminal offense under either <a href=\"https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-47-telecommunications/chapter-5-wire-or-radio-communication/subchapter-v-penal-provisions-forfeitures/section-502-violation-of-rules-regulations-etc\" rel=\"noreferrer\">47 U.S.C. \u00a7 502</a> or <a href=\"https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-47-telecommunications/chapter-5-wire-or-radio-communication/subchapter-v-penal-provisions-forfeitures/section-501-general-penalty\" rel=\"noreferrer\">47 U.S. Code \u00a7 501</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Any person who willfully and knowingly does ... any act ... in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful ... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this chapter, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 33, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 975}, "distance": 0.5889662504196167, "relevance_score": 0.4110337495803833}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There are numerous criminal offences within the Act covering various business, for-profit or for-gain infringement scenarios, such as <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 107</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(1) <strong>A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner\u2014</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a) makes for sale or hire, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(d) in the course of a business \u2014</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i)sells or lets for hire, or</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 976, "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 42, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5898659229278564, "relevance_score": 0.41013407707214355}, {"content": "Answer 2: <ol>\n<li><p>You could have 100 indictments. You have to wait until one of the cases is finished with a &quot;guilty&quot; verdict.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The possibility may not have occured to anyone. Obviously yes if indictments end with a &quot;not guilty&quot; verdict.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>When you go to court accused of murder, until the verdict is given it is &quot;only&quot; an accusation. That's the same for all criminal court cases. &quot;Innocent until proven guilty&quot;. You start with an accusation, hopefully one that the prosecutor believes they can prove, then a judge and/or jury hear evidence, and then there is usually a &quot;guilty&quot; or &quot;not guilty&quot; verdict.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "original_index": 16, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 714}, "distance": 0.5899744033813477, "relevance_score": 0.41002559661865234}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and <strong>infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it</strong>.\u2079 Although \u201c[t]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another,\u201d these doctrines of secondary liability emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law.</p>\n<p>\u2079 We stated in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</em></a> that \u201cthe lines between direct infringement, contributory infringement and vicarious liability are not clearly drawn\u201d \u2026</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 188, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "content_length": 813}, "distance": 0.5902594327926636, "relevance_score": 0.4097405672073364}, {"content": "empowering courts to enforce those rules.'8 PACE artfully balances\npolice and prosecutorial interests with the fair and reliable\nadministration of justice. 19 In evaluating the need for reform in\nAmerican police interrogation policy, English law provides a valuable\nmodel for comparison.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h4>Pages 1051-3</h4>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0 Courts considering the admissibility of confessions evidence\nevaluate police conduct for compliance with PACE section 76 and\n78.189 The cornerstones of the law governing police interrogation are\nreliability and fairness. PACE section 76 provides:</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in\nevidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to\nthe court that the confession was or may have been obtained</p>\n<p>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</p>\n<p>(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the", "metadata": {"content_length": 974, "original_index": 66, "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5905802845954895, "relevance_score": 0.4094197154045105}, {"content": "14 as set forth in section 13B; aggravated indecent assault and\nbattery on a child under 14 as set forth in section 13B \u00bd; indecent\nassault and battery on a person 14 or older as set forth in section\n13H; assault of a child with intent to commit rape as set forth in\nsection 24B; rape of a child with force as set forth in section 22A;\naggravated rape of a child with force as set forth in section 22B;\nrape and abuse of a child as set forth in section 23; aggravated rape\nand abuse of a child as set forth in section 23A; rape as set forth in\nsection 22; or a like violation of the laws of another state, the\nUnited States or a military, territorial or Indian tribal authority,\nshall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for\nany term of years, but not less than 20 years. . . .</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, \u00a7 22C.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 211, "content_length": 863, "chunk_index": 16, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5906954407691956, "relevance_score": 0.40930455923080444}, {"content": "<p>It  Instead, the criterion applied is whether there is &quot;<em>sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and if so, is a prosecution in the public interest?</em>&quot;</p>\n<p><strong>LONG ANSWER</strong></p>\n<p>The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide whether or not to charge a suspect<sup>1</sup> by applying one of two tests depending on the circumstances:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><strong>The Full Code Test</strong></a></p>\n<p>This is applied in the majority of cases, and has two stages:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Evidential Stage</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The relevant extracts are:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge [<em>or a judicial finding they did the relevant act but are not guilty by reason of insanity</em>]</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 945, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5910730361938477, "relevance_score": 0.40892696380615234}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n  <p>A person who knows that another is exposed to grave\n  physical harm shall... give reasonable\n  assistance to the exposed person</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>(This duty has certain exceptions - like when rendering assistance would put your hypothetical scumbag in danger - which, so far as you've said, do not apply here. Penalties for violating laws like this are generally small. See <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/2012/title12/chapter23/section519\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/2012/title12/chapter23/section519</a>,  <a href=\"http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/</a> and <a href=\"http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&amp;context=wmlr\" rel=\"noreferrer\">http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&amp;context=wmlr</a>)</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, murder, duty-of-care", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 102, "chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 963}, "distance": 0.5929473042488098, "relevance_score": 0.4070526957511902}, {"content": "<p>Of key importance, I argue that the last trial was for the same murder. My friends were claiming to witness me murder Bob at the very time and place that the actual murder took place (maybe they even did watch the murder).  The police had already suspected me of murdering Bob at this time as well, and had presented some, less effective, evidence at the first trial that they possessed due to the fact that I had actually murdered Bob. </p>\n\n<p>Can I get away with murder?</p>\n\n<p>Does the answer change if the police can prove I planted the original fake evidence which I used to inspire the first murder trial?</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>The double jeopardy clause would prevent you from being retried by the government that tried you for murder (probably a U.S. state). </p>\n\n<p>But, you could be tried for fraud and obstruction of justice at the state level, and you could be tried for murder if an appropriate federal offense were located, at the federal level. </p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 292, "content_length": 967}, "distance": 0.5933020114898682, "relevance_score": 0.40669798851013184}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Without being exhaustive, we believe the core elements of prosecutorial discretion encompass the following:  (a) <strong>the discretion whether to bring the prosecution of a charge</strong> laid by police; (b) the discretion to enter a stay of proceedings in either a private or public prosecution, as codified in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 579 and 579.1; (c) the discretion to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge; (d) the discretion to withdraw from criminal proceedings altogether...</p>\n<p>Significantly, what is common to the various elements of prosecutorial discretion is that they involve the ultimate decisions as to whether a prosecution should be brought, continued or ceased, and what the prosecution ought to be for.  Put differently, prosecutorial discretion refers to decisions regarding the nature and extent of the prosecution and the Attorney General\u2019s participation in it. ...</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 10, "original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 950, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5950750112533569, "relevance_score": 0.40492498874664307}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>But in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">545 U.S. 913</a> (2005), the Supreme Court found Grokster liable for copyright infringement by the users of their peer-to-peer file sharing software. While the software had substantial non-infringing uses, the Supreme Court upheld MGM\u2019s claim on an \u201cinducement theory\u201d because there was evidence that Grokster actively encouraged copyright infringement:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>Sony</em>\u2019s rule limits imputing culpable intent as a matter of law from the characteristics or uses of a distributed product. But nothing in <em>Sony</em> requires courts to ignore evidence of intent if there is such evidence, and the case was never meant to foreclose rules of fault-based liability derived from the common law \u2026</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 977, "chunk_index": 11}, "distance": 0.5956679582595825, "relevance_score": 0.4043320417404175}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>And jail time is doubled for repeat offenders.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this chapter punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 406, "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 33, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.5959656238555908, "relevance_score": 0.4040343761444092}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Penalty for breach of regulations.</p>\n<p>Subject to section 68(1) of this Act [<em>i.e. reasonable excuse</em>], if a person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act and contravention thereof, or failure to comply therewith, is not made an offence under any other provision of this Act, <strong>he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>And see <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/regulation/7?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Paragraph 7</a> Public Service Vehicles\n(Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(2)\u00a0... every passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall\u2013</p>\n<ul>", "metadata": {"content_length": 895, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 158}, "distance": 0.5970157980918884, "relevance_score": 0.4029842019081116}, {"content": "<p>Whoever corruptly-- obstructs, influences, or impedes any official\nproceeding, or attempts to do so</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>is guilty of a felony punishable by up to twenty years in prison.</p>\n<p>There is already case law testing the constitutionality of this portion of this statute in the context of the same course of conduct related to the January 6, 2021 riot by a lower level minor from the D.C. Circuit whose rulings are binding precedents in this indictment. <em>United States v. Fischer</em>, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023).</p>\n<p>The foundation for this ruling is <a href=\"https://nprotected-speech-synopsis\" rel=\"noreferrer\">longstanding</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct</strong></p>\n<p>In <em>Giboney v. Empire Storage &amp; Ice Co.</em> (1949), the Supreme Court\nheld the First Amendment affords no protection to \u201cspeech or writing\nused as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal", "metadata": {"content_length": 950, "original_index": 83, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 14}, "distance": 0.5988204479217529, "relevance_score": 0.40117955207824707}, {"content": "</ul>\n<p>From a website of Attorney John Guidry,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li>&quot;<a href=\"https://www.jgcrimlaw.com/free-will-determinism-and-the-criminal-justice-system.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Free Will, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System</a>&quot;</li>\n</ul>\n<p>However, it does not appear to be published much in legal literature of legal cases. From what I have studied, the legal system adheres to the philosophy that criminals commit crimes via compatibilist free will. This, however, is from what I have pieced together from legal literature that I have read over the past 10 years. It seems to be a tenet that comes from the neo-classical school of criminology.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 878, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.5989708304405212, "relevance_score": 0.40102916955947876}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Statistical figures showing a higher prevalence of grand jury\nreluctance to follow the government in ages past are almost\nnonexistent. However, a table of felony arrests in New York County\nbetween 1900 and 1907 found on page 111 of the 1926 book The Prisoner\nat the Bar by Arthur Train provides some rare illumination. In those\nseven years, some 5,214 out of 57,241 people were arrested by the\npolice on felony charges whom New York state grand jurors decided not\nto indict.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 16, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "content_length": 508}, "distance": 0.600115180015564, "relevance_score": 0.39988481998443604}, {"content": "Answer 7: <p>After some reflection, I have theorized that where it is &quot;officially&quot; stated that the American criminal justice system presumes that defendants commit crimes with free will is found in the U.S. Constitution: To clarify, a necessary component of something being a crime (in the U.S.) is that the alleged crime was done with free will. More specifically, the official stating of such is found in the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.</p>\n<p>My reasoning for this is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause:</p>\n<p>&quot;This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&quot;</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "chunk_index": 12, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 980}, "distance": 0.6003010869026184, "relevance_score": 0.3996989130973816}, {"content": "Question Title: Is there any requirement to state the specific reason for a conviction?", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 165, "content_length": 87}, "distance": 0.6009008288383484, "relevance_score": 0.3990991711616516}, {"content": "Answer 4: <h2>Charged?</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Crimes Act 1900</a></p>\n<p><strong>Murder or manslaughter</strong> s18</p>\n<p>An assertion of self-defence would not necessarily be agreed with by the prosecutor. Especially in circumstances where it seems the accused took steps to conceal or destroy evidence and the accused is the only witness.</p>\n<p>There may be sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did <em>not</em> act in self-defence and that the killing was unlawful. If the Crown can also prove intent, then that\u2019s murder, if they can\u2019t it\u2019s manslaughter.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 941}, "distance": 0.6021377444267273, "relevance_score": 0.3978622555732727}, {"content": "<p>This case held that the statute was constitutional where the charged conduct caused harm inside United States or to United States citizens or interests, that provided sufficient nexus, as required by due process, between United States and defendant's conduct in allegedly meeting with co-conspirators in Miami, Florida, where a noncitizen defendant, a citizen of Portugal and Switzerland who was employee of Swiss wealth-management firm, conspired to violate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as agent of a person while in United States, relating to alleged international bribery scheme between businesses based in United States and Venezuelan officials and the defendant has the intent or knowledge that the monies involved were proceeds of specified unlawful activity would be unlawfully transmitted from or through a place in United States to a place outside United States.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 83, "content_length": 886, "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6025338768959045, "relevance_score": 0.39746612310409546}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a \u201cbreach of privilege\u201d and is punishable by the House.[116] There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 882, "chunk_index": 6, "original_index": 78, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6028640866279602, "relevance_score": 0.3971359133720398}, {"content": "<p>If the school was truly negligent in allowing a forged permission slip to a dangerous activity, then they could be found responsible for extraordinary costs associated with the injury, other costs (pain, suffering, loss of opportunity, emotional consequences, etc) and perhaps even punitive damages.</p>\n<p>If you're suggesting that someone might be <em>criminally</em> responsible, then a very high bar would need to be cleared. It would need to be proven that a school representative (eg. teacher or administrator) <em>deliberately</em> put the kid in danger for some reason, <em>knowing</em> what the likely outcome would be. That standard seems extremely unlikey to be met.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 684, "original_index": 15, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6030486822128296, "relevance_score": 0.3969513177871704}, {"content": "relationship</p>\n<p>(1)A person (A) commits an offence if\u2014</p>\n<p>(a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another\nperson (B) that is controlling or coercive,</p>\n<p>(b)at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,</p>\n<p>(c)the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and</p>\n<p>(d)A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious\neffect on B.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Here is the Crown Prosecution Service guidance for prosecuting s76 Serious Crime Act 2015</a>.</p>\n<p>Simply lying about one's job or income to have a one-night stand would not constitute the s76 offence.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 755, "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 180, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6052923798561096, "relevance_score": 0.3947076201438904}, {"content": "<p>Just this summer, however, the U.S. Supreme Court created an except to an exception to <em>Daimler AG v. Bauman</em>, in the case of <em><a href=\"https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mallory-v-norfolk-southern-railway-co/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co</a>.</em>, ___ U.S. ___ (2023), holding that in states where a company is registered to do business, if the state has a statute (like the one in Pennsylvania) allowing its residents to sue the business on any claim against a company registered there arising anywhere in the world, that the state has jurisdiction over the case.</p>\n<p>(There is also another case creating a partial exception to the <em>Daimler AG v. Bauman</em> rule in cases that involve fact patterns very different from those in the question, such as product liability lawsuits against car makers.)</p>\n<p><em>Specific Jurisdiction Where The Claim Arises</em></p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 275, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 931, "chunk_index": 7}, "distance": 0.6053671836853027, "relevance_score": 0.39463281631469727}, {"content": "<p>This would send them to a medium-security prison despite a lack of &quot;points&quot; from offense severity, a prior criminal record, or a history of violence, lack of gang involvement, or an absence of a prior escape attempt.</p>\n<h3>Long answer</h3>\n<p>Each U.S. state has its own system.</p>\n<p>In the U.S. federal criminal justice system, a convicted felon's assignment to a particular prison is a decision made by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, after the defendant has been sentenced by a federal judge for a particular sentence length for a particular crime. The FBP <a href=\"https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008cn.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">states</a> that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's\nimprisonment, and shall, subject to bed availability, the prisoner's\nsecurity designation, the prisoner's programmatic needs, the\nprisoner's mental and medical health needs, any request made by the", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 954, "original_index": 108}, "distance": 0.6060045957565308, "relevance_score": 0.39399540424346924}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Section 101(e) of the Copyright Act makes unlawful the \u201cunauthorized manufacture, use, or sale\u201d of phonograph records. Because of the open-ended terminology of the section, and the related section 1(e), courts have had to trace, case by case, a pattern of business relationships which would render one person liable for the infringing conduct of another. It is quite clear, for example, that the normal agency rule of <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">respondeat superior</a> applies to copyright infringement by a servant within the scope of his employment.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 630, "chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 188}, "distance": 0.606410026550293, "relevance_score": 0.39358997344970703}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>What's the purpose of indicting Mr. Trump if indictments are only an accusation?</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzUnW.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/gzUnW.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>An indictment is a pre-requisite to trying someone for a felony in federal court. To convict someone of a crime one needs to first indict them, then have a jury trial, and then have a jury unanimously vote to convict a person, before they can be convicted of a crime and sentenced for it. Even after conviction, there is a statutory (but not a constitutional) right to a direct appeal of that conviction to an appellate court.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 730, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 16, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6065734028816223, "relevance_score": 0.3934265971183777}, {"content": "Question Title: Can someone get protection under Double Jeopardy for a crime by arranging to be put on trial with fake evidence that is then disproven?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Lets say I just killed Bob (I'm doing a lot of that today).  The police suspect me but currently have little evidence that I killed Bob.  However, I haven't hidden the murder weapon and body well and can't move them now, so it's just a matter of time before someone finds them and provides the police with enough evidence to convict me.</p>\n\n<p>To avoid jail time when the body is found, I try to protect myself with a claim of double jeopardy.  I have two friends claim to have witnessed my killing Bob and I leave a suspicious weapon that looks like it could be the murder weapon somewhere the police will find it.  With all this evidence, the police decide to press charges and have me arrested.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 873, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 292, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6086063981056213, "relevance_score": 0.39139360189437866}, {"content": "Question Title: To what extent does financial interest in vicarious liability in copyright law extend?", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 188, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 102}, "distance": 0.6091313362121582, "relevance_score": 0.3908686637878418}, {"content": "are calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff in respect\nof any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried\non by him at the time of the publication.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>But surely this section of the Act would always apply. The loss suffered as a result of a statement is always going to be economic (e.g., lost investment, sales, etc.) and the statement being malicious means that it was intended to cause damage when it was made.</p>\n<p>Thus, whis this section of the Act considered to be an exception to the general rule, when in fact it would seem to apply in all cases?</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 611, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 54}, "distance": 0.6096752882003784, "relevance_score": 0.3903247117996216}, {"content": "Tags: negligence, security, manslaughter", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 40, "original_index": 274, "chunk_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6097400188446045, "relevance_score": 0.3902599811553955}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against\nthe United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency\nthereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such\npersons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall\nbe fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or\nboth.</p>\n<p>If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the\nconspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy\nshall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 598, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 97}, "distance": 0.6102378368377686, "relevance_score": 0.38976216316223145}, {"content": "deception was &quot;merely a detail,&quot; refusing to exclude the admissions\nfrom evidence at trial.211</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"6\">\n<li>Aldert Vrij, <em>&quot;We Will Protect Your Wife and Child, But Only If You Confess&quot; Police Interrogations in England and the Netherlands</em>, in\nADVERSARIAL VERSUS INQUISITORIAL JUSTICE: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES\nON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, <em>supra</em> note 5, at 55, 56.</li>\n<li>See JOHN SPRACK, EMMINS ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 4-5 (9th ed. 2002).</li>\n<li>Id.</li>\n<li>Id. at 7.</li>\n<li>See Vrij, <em>supra</em> note 6, at 56 (stating that it is implied that evidence obtained by deceit and trickery cannot be admitted into\nevidence in courts in England).</li>\n<li>See generally id. at 55-79 (discussing interrogation procedures in England).</li>\n<li>PETER MIRFIELD, SILENCE, CONFESSIONS AND IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE 11 (1997) (explaining that evidence indicates that the use of", "metadata": {"original_index": 66, "chunk_index": 13, "content_length": 950, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6114134788513184, "relevance_score": 0.38858652114868164}, {"content": "over time based on an offender\u2019s institutional adjustment (i.e.,\nviolence in the BOP can result in assignment of points).</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The rule provides with regard to this factor:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QyLLd.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/QyLLd.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"5\">\n<li><p>History of escape or attempts. Acts for which there are documented findings of guilt, including absconding from community supervision or\nfailing to appear for a criminal case, will be scored.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Detainers. Points are scored for detainers, including both those actually lodged and where law enforcement indicates a firm intent to\nlodge one. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers are not\nscored. Age. Given the correlation between age (youth) and negative\ninstitutional adjustment, points are assigned, with inmates under 24", "metadata": {"content_length": 938, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11, "original_index": 108}, "distance": 0.6116752624511719, "relevance_score": 0.3883247375488281}, {"content": "Question Title: What are the consequences of being party to a OFAC prohibited transaction?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The US Treasury <a href=\"https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">has sanctioned</a> Tornado Cash which is a tool for mixing Cryptocurrency. Since the sanctions don't actually stop this tool from working someone has used it to <a href=\"https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/tornado-cash-ofac-sanction-trolls/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">send small amounts of funds to various celebrities</a>. In my understanding these qualify as prohibited transactions as defined by the US treasury which US persons are forbidden from engaging in.</p>\n<p>For those recipients that are US persons, what are the consequences? Do they have to report those funds? Could they get in any trouble if they just ignore this? Or if they spend those funds?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 299, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 881}, "distance": 0.6119667291641235, "relevance_score": 0.38803327083587646}, {"content": "Question Title: At what point is it punishable to support a &quot;criminal organisation&quot;?", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 113, "content_length": 94}, "distance": 0.6125255823135376, "relevance_score": 0.3874744176864624}, {"content": "<li>Driving with <em>some</em> blood alcohol is legal, as long as you are below the limit and drive well enough. Without any signs of alcohol-related errors, you can have less than 0.5 permille.</li>\n<li>Driving under the influence of alcohol in a manner that is noticeable for the intoxication, you gain a hefty fine when caught. That is called Trunkenheit I'm Stra\u00dfenverkehr (~Driving under the Influence of Alcohol) under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__316.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7316 StGB</a> (Penal Code) and can trigger as early as 0.3 permille alcohol according to the highest German court.</li>\n<li>Getting caught while driving with more than 0.5 permille gives you a hefty fine and automatic loss of the driver's license for 1 to 3 months, depending on how often you do it. This is regulated in  <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvg/__24a.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a724a StVG</a>, and is called the &quot;0.5 permille limit&quot;</li>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 989, "original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 20, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6132376194000244, "relevance_score": 0.3867623805999756}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Article 175 of the <a href=\"https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581/en\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Criminal Code</a> says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person who distributes, sells or displays in public an obscene document, drawing or other objects shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than 2 years, a fine of not more than 2,500,000 yen or a petty fine. The same shall apply to a person who possesses the same for the purpose of sale.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This has been interpreted to require pixelization, blurring, censorship bars, or other means of obscuring genitalia.</p>\n<p>See the <a href=\"https://cbldf.org/2013/12/core-magazine-pleads-guilty-in-japanese-obscenity-case/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2013 guilty plea by publishers of Core Magazine</a> for an example prosecution under art. 175 for insufficient censorship.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 860, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 244, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.613379180431366, "relevance_score": 0.38662081956863403}, {"content": "<p>This finding is called a Special Verdict under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/46-47/38/section/2?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 2(1)</a>, Trial Of Lunatics Act 1883:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>2 Special verdict where accused found guilty, but insane at date of act or omission charged, and orders thereupon.</strong></p>\n<p>(1) Where in any indictment or information any act or omission is charged against any person as an offence, and it is given in evidence on the trial of such person for that offence that he was insane, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for his actions at the time when the act was done or omission made, then, if it appears to the jury before whom such person is tried that he did the act or made the omission charged, but was insane as aforesaid at the time when he did or made the same, <strong>the jury shall return\u00a0a special verdict that the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 9, "original_index": 37, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 987, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6135410070419312, "relevance_score": 0.38645899295806885}, {"content": "federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be\nsufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the\nprosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the\nperson is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or\n(3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.</p>\n<p>Comment. JM 9-27.220 sets forth the longstanding threshold requirement\nfrom the Principles of Federal Prosecution that a prosecutor may\ncommence or recommend federal prosecution only if he/she believes that\nthe person will more likely than not be found guilty beyond a\nreasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction\nwill be upheld on appeal. Evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction\nis required under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal\nProcedure, to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a\nmatter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 23, "original_index": 38, "content_length": 945, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6135854721069336, "relevance_score": 0.3864145278930664}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li><p>Voluntary surrender to custody. Where a court permits a defendant to voluntarily surrender to BOP custody for service of an initial term\nof confinement (not supervised release violation), three points are\nsubtracted from the security point total.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Severity of current offense. Appendix A to Program Statement 5100.08 contains a scale of various offense behaviors, and the Designation Manual provides a corresponding point assignment for\nassessed severity. When evaluating offense severity, staff consider\nthe most severe documented behavior, as set forth in the PSR, not\nnecessarily the offense of conviction.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This ranges from 0-7. The key for assigning this score starts at page 97 of the pdf linked.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>Criminal history score. Points are assigned based on an offender\u2019s criminal history points, taken from the judgment\u2019s statement of", "metadata": {"original_index": 108, "content_length": 942, "chunk_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6140764951705933, "relevance_score": 0.38592350482940674}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>[52] ... a cellphone that is turned off can be turned on; a cellphone with a dead battery can be plugged in (see <em>R. v. Jahani</em>, <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2017 BCSC 745</a>, where a ticket was upheld for a person who did just that); a cellphone with software limiting its functionality can, potentially, be used to disable that software.</p>\n<p>[53] Importantly, the legislature\u2019s intention to promote road safety supports this reading. All of the above actions have the potential to distract the driver. The purpose of public protection is served by understanding that this form of distracted behaviour is indeed prohibited.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 748, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 209}, "distance": 0.6144362092018127, "relevance_score": 0.38556379079818726}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr06_1/p1.html#sec11\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Latimer and Lawrence explain</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified in <em><a href=\"https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1711/index.do\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">R. v. Winko</a></em> that Section 672.54 does not create a presumption of dangerousness. In other words, while the protection of society is paramount, there must be clear evidence of a significant risk to the public before a court or Review Board can maintain control over an accused through the imposition of a conditional discharge or detention order.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Some extracts from <em>Winko</em>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Restrictions on his or her liberty can only be justified if, <strong>at the time of the hearing</strong>, the evidence before the court or Review Board shows that the NCR accused actually constitutes such a threat</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 993, "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 37, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6147443056106567, "relevance_score": 0.38525569438934326}, {"content": "<li><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93809/46948\">Can a private party shoot down an aircraft in self defense or in defense of others?</a></li>\n</ul>\n<p>If Alice believes on reasonable grounds that there is a threat of force against John, then the defence called &quot;<a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/87387/46948\">defence of another</a>&quot; comes into play. It is codified at s. 34 of the <em>Criminal Code</em>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>34\u00a0(1)\u00a0A person is not guilty of an offence if</p>\n<p>(a)\u00a0they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;</p>\n<p>(b)\u00a0the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and</p>\n<p>(c)\u00a0the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 927, "original_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6148741245269775, "relevance_score": 0.38512587547302246}, {"content": "<p>N'est pas p\u00e9nalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'ex\u00e9cution d'un crime ou d'un d\u00e9lit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de d\u00e9fense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement n\u00e9cessaire au but poursuivi d\u00e8s lors que les moyens employ\u00e9s sont proportionn\u00e9s \u00e0 la gravit\u00e9 de l'infraction.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person has no criminal liability when he or she is faced by an unjustified attack against himself or herself or another, accomplishes at the same time an act out of the need of legitimate defense or himself, herself or another, unless there is a disproportion between the means of defense and the severity of the attack.</p>\n<p>A person has no criminal liability when he or she accomplishes an act of defense other than voluntary homicide, in order to interrupt a crime or felony against goods, when the act is strictly necessary to the aim of defense and when the means of the act are proportionate to the gravity of the attack.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 13, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 277, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 998}, "distance": 0.6152426600456238, "relevance_score": 0.3847573399543762}, {"content": "<p>I am asking this because I am studying the ethics of this concurrently, and knowing what the law is is an important side of that.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 136, "original_index": 273, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6158871650695801, "relevance_score": 0.3841128349304199}, {"content": "<p>Allegations of prosecutoral failings or abuse of process are usually dealt with in a <em>voir dire</em> following a defence application under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/78?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 78</a>\nPolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or via the court's inherent powers.</p>\n<p>There is also the possibility of a &quot;Misconduct in Public Office&quot; investigation if the alleged failings and / or abuse of process are severe enough.</p>\n<p>So no: they can't be called unless they are a <em>bone fide</em> witness.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 132, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 581, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6165652871131897, "relevance_score": 0.3834347128868103}, {"content": "<p>Also, Tyler apparently did not know the seemingly obvious fact that a convicted felon cannot practice law, let alone while actually in prison.  However, this was not felt by the court to be &quot;ingenuous&quot;: &quot;To expect a layperson to be familiar with the internal discipline procedures of the Bar is unreasonable.&quot;</p>\n<p>There is also a discussion of such situations in the following article:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Grace M. Giesel, <em>Upjohn Warnings, The Attorney-client Privilege, And Principles Of Lawyer Ethics: Achieving Harmony</em>, 65 U. Miami L.\nRev. 109 (2015).  Available at <a href=\"http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol65/iss1/5\" rel=\"noreferrer\">this link</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>See Section IV.D.2 on page 140:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In addition to applying the honest-and-reasonable-belief analysis in\nthe attorney-client privilege setting to the question of representational", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 266, "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 910}, "distance": 0.6178421974182129, "relevance_score": 0.3821578025817871}, {"content": "You can file charges against the other side at this point, too. Police are familiar with situations where two sides accuse each other.</li>\n<li>Having collected evidence and statements, the police decide if there is enough of a case to present it to the prosecutor's office. That's not yet a determination of guilt, it merely means that they will look into it further. The prosecutor decides if there is enough of a case to bring it to court. (The prosecutor must see a likelihood of success.)</li>\n<li>If the case goes to trial, there will probably be a single judge, no jury. You are not required to have a defense attorney, but you might want to if there are language problems. However, in the German system, the judge is not merely the 'referee' between the prosecution and defense. The judge is supposed to question witnesses to understand what happened, and in many cases the judge will ask the same questions a defender would have asked.</li>", "metadata": {"content_length": 949, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 269, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6187909841537476, "relevance_score": 0.38120901584625244}, {"content": "<p>The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose occurs when one <strong>induces commission of infringement by another, or \u201centic[es] or persuad[es] another\u201d to infringe, as by advertising</strong>. Thus at common law a copyright or patent defendant who \u201cnot only expected but invoked [infringing use] by advertisement\u201d was liable for infringement \u201con principles recognized in every part of the law\u201d \u2026</p>\n<p>The rule on inducement of infringement as developed in the early cases is no different today. Evidence of \u201cactive steps ... taken to encourage direct infringement,\u201d such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law\u2019s reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely\nsells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 932, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12}, "distance": 0.6191215515136719, "relevance_score": 0.3808784484863281}, {"content": "<p>Probable cause is also the standard used by a grand jury, and in an adversarial pre-trial hearing, to screen charges before they go to trial. It is also the standard for issuing an arrest warrant.</p>\n<p>The higher threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for convicting a defendant at a trial on the merits of the defendant's guilt or innocence, it is not the standard for bringing a criminal charge in the first place. The job of the prosecutor at trial is to convince the trier of fact (usually a jury, but sometimes a judge in a bench trial) that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case was thin on evidence when commenced, this may require law enforcement and the prosecutor's office to develop evidence after the criminal charges are brought.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 798, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6191961765289307, "relevance_score": 0.38080382347106934}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Sometimes, things that are made of legal fiction are held to operate as normal even when someone attempts to disobey them.</p>\n<p>For example, I can browse a web site and agree to its terms, or I can not browse the web site, but it seems <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/92317/18089\">I can't browse the web site but not form the TOS contract, even if I am willing to accept the consequences of not having permission.</a></p>\n<p>Does this same principle apply to copyright law? If a license is attached to something saying that anyone may copy it provided that they pay a fee much larger than the damages for copyright infringement, and I copy it, can the licensor declare that I agreed to the license and therefore owe the fee? Or can I say I rejected the license and am only responsible for the damages?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 270, "content_length": 834, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6201483011245728, "relevance_score": 0.37985169887542725}, {"content": "<p><strong>18 U.S.C. \u00a7 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)</strong></p>\n<p>A conspiracy to cause false election results to be certified to Congress to change the results of a Presidential election by two or more persons impairs the constitutional right to vote, and rights under Congressional adopted federal election laws.</p>\n<p>Notably, a conspiracy to violate rights, which is a felony punishable by up to death if the conspiracy causes someone's death (as can be plausibly alleged in this case due to a death arising from the January 6, 2021 riot) provides that the felony has been committed:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or\nintimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,\nPossession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right\nor privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United\nStates, or because of his having so exercised the same.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 16, "original_index": 83, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 954, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6207095980644226, "relevance_score": 0.3792904019355774}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>It is an unquestioned pre-American axiom, expressed in Latin as <em>actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea</em> (&quot;the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty&quot;) which has been part of the Anglo-American legal system since at least the 17th century. It is thus presupposed in all criminal proceedings. It's not that a person only commits a crime with free will, it's that it is not deemed to be a crime if there is no free will. A person can be held at gunpoint and required to commit a criminal act: the person does indeed have free will to choose to be killed rather than commit the act, but the act is legally excused since dying is never held to be the only acceptable alternative to committing an otherwise-criminal act.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 761, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175}, "distance": 0.6207183599472046, "relevance_score": 0.3792816400527954}, {"content": "<p>&quot;Shall&quot; means &quot;must&quot; \u2013 if there is a warrant (we assume there is no consent). Then the question is, what happens if the phlebotomist (etc) refuses? First, <a href=\"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=577.031&amp;bid=29960\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7577.031</a> immunizes the medical-person from legal liability when they act in compliance with a request from a LEO (a simple request, not necessarily accompanied by a warrant). <a href=\"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=577.033&amp;bid=29962\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7577.033</a> says that being dead, unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing does not constitute withdrawal of consent (which is implied, by law). No specific penalty is prescribed for refusal to administer a court-ordered blood draw. There is no penalty for complying, there is no prescribed criminal penalty for refusing to comply with a court order (there is the possibility of a finding of contempt of court).</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "content_length": 999, "original_index": 278}, "distance": 0.6221491694450378, "relevance_score": 0.37785083055496216}, {"content": "Tags: england-and-wales, legal-research", "metadata": {"original_index": 259, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 39, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6226327419281006, "relevance_score": 0.3773672580718994}, {"content": "commence or recommend a prosecution even though a key witness may be\nout of the country, so long as there is a good faith basis to believe\nthat the witness's presence at trial could reasonably be expected. ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>With regard to the prosecutor's belief about the prospect of conviction, other common law jurisdictions have similar requirements.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 365, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 25, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6234375238418579, "relevance_score": 0.3765624761581421}, {"content": "<p><strong>Destroying or damaging property</strong> s195</p>\n<p><strong>Bushfires</strong> s203E I haven't seen it but its possible that the accused intentionally started a fire with reckless disregard if it might spread to vegetation.</p>\n<p><strong>Hindering investigation etc</strong> s315</p>\n<p><strong>Concealing a serious indictable offence</strong> s316</p>\n<p><strong>Tampering etc with evidence</strong> s317</p>\n<p><strong>General offence of perverting the course of justice</strong> s319</p>\n<p><strong>Accessory after the fact to the first murder</strong> s349</p>\n<p>Quite likely, setting fire to a van will also be an offence under environmental law.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 669, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107}, "distance": 0.6237447261810303, "relevance_score": 0.3762552738189697}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>The concept of a \u201cfinancial interest\u201d affecting <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">vicarious liability</a> for copyright infringement is derived from United States case law. In <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">545 U.S. 913</a> (2005), the Supreme Court described it in these terms:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "content_length": 570, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6246138215065002, "relevance_score": 0.37538617849349976}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>I don't see how any legal system, US,or otherwise, could work without the assumption of free will.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Defendant: I don't have free will, so I can't be held responsible for my actions.</li>\n<li>Judge: I don't have free will either, so I'm going to have to sentence you.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"original_index": 175, "content_length": 302, "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6256564855575562, "relevance_score": 0.37434351444244385}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I've been studying the relation between free will and the U.S. criminal justice system, and it appears that there is the argument that whether or not a defendant had free will to commit a crime is a significant factor in determining whether or not the defendant is factually guilty of having committed a crime.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A &quot;universal and persistent&quot; foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the &quot;belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/41/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978)</a></li>\n</ul>\n<p>From a website of Attorney John Guidry,</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 878, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175}, "distance": 0.6263158917427063, "relevance_score": 0.3736841082572937}, {"content": "<h2>Charges</h2>\n<p>A prosecutor should bring charges when they believe there is a reasonable chance of conviction. That is, they have evidence that they believe will convince most juries of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury\u2019s vary - some are easier to convince than others, but an experienced prosecutor has encountered all kinds and has a good feel of when they have a case and when they don\u2019t.</p>\n<p>Of course, the prosecutor must make this decision without knowledge of the case the defendant will run. Therefore, good prosecutors make allowance for this and lay charges when the evidence is overwhelming, not just sufficient.</p>\n<h2>Indictment</h2>", "metadata": {"content_length": 659, "original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 20, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6275440454483032, "relevance_score": 0.3724559545516968}, {"content": "Question Title: Legality of DUI blood tests", "metadata": {"content_length": 43, "original_index": 278, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6276140213012695, "relevance_score": 0.37238597869873047}, {"content": "<h2>Indictment</h2>\n<p>In any event, except for summary offences (misdemeanours), the prosecutor has to convince a judge or grand jury that they have enough evidence. To do this, they present their case completely unchallenged by the defence. That is, they get to show the evidence in the best possible light. If that doesnt convince the judge or grand jury, then they don\u2019t get to go forward.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 397, "chunk_index": 21, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 38, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6277618408203125, "relevance_score": 0.3722381591796875}, {"content": "<p>99.\u2014(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, no person shall sound, or cause or permit to be sounded, any horn, gong, bell or siren fitted to or carried on a vehicle which is\u2014</p>\n<p>(a) stationary on a road, at any time, other than at times of danger due to another moving vehicle on or near the road...</p>\n<p><sub><Sup><a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/99/made\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986</a></sub></Sup></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The policeman would be well within his rights and duties to provide you with a fixed penalty notice of \u00a330.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 298, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 623, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6278895139694214, "relevance_score": 0.3721104860305786}, {"content": "<p><em>Tag Jurisdiction Over Natural Persons</em></p>\n<p>Another way that a state can have jurisdiction over a defendant is called &quot;tag jurisdiction&quot; which is obtained by physically handing a summons and complaint to the defendant in person in the state as allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of <em>Burnham v. Superior Court</em>. This is allowed for natural persons (i.e. human beings) who are defendants, but it isn't allowed as a way to give a state jurisdiction over a defendant who is a company.</p>\n<p><em>Waiver Of In Personam Jurisdiction Defenses</em></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "content_length": 578, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 275}, "distance": 0.6281155943870544, "relevance_score": 0.37188440561294556}, {"content": "English interrogations,<sup>12</sup> PACE enforces the prohibition by requiring the police to record every interview.<sup>13</sup> Even a violation of the\nrecording requirement itself can result in the exclusion of a\nconfession from trial.<sup>14</sup><br />\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0  Although commentators have criticized deceptive police practices\nfor decades,<sup>15</sup> American jurisprudence continues to overlook what\nEnglish courts have long recognized: deceptive police practices yield\nfalse confessions and, thus, wrongful convictions.<sup>16</sup> Confessions\ngained through police deception are often factually inaccurate and\nuntrustworthy.17 English law limits the use of these deceptive\npractices by establishing clear rules for the police to follow and\nempowering courts to enforce those rules.'8 PACE artfully balances\npolice and prosecutorial interests with the fair and reliable\nadministration of justice. 19 In evaluating the need for reform in", "metadata": {"content_length": 950, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 66}, "distance": 0.628126859664917, "relevance_score": 0.371873140335083}, {"content": "Question Title: Artist liability for illegal art?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Have any graffiti artists, in the process of asserting their copyright claim in court over illegally placed works of art, and in doing to by proving themselves to the the creator of the works, been subsequently found financially liable for the cost of removing or painting over their own work?  (either as part of the proceedings, or in a later counter-suit?)</p>\n<p>And/or have are there cases where revenue from the copyright infringer's use of the art was funneled towards cleanup costs instead of the artist?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 585, "original_index": 114}, "distance": 0.628332257270813, "relevance_score": 0.371667742729187}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>Yes, it\u2019s the illegal act of corruption</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s249b.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">s249B</a> of the <em>Crimes Act</em> criminalises an agent (the police officer in your case) from corruptly receiving an inducement or reward to do or not do something or to show favour or disfavour to a person. It\u2019s also a crime to offer or make such an inducement or reward. Both punishable by 7 years.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 647, "original_index": 225, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.6284531354904175, "relevance_score": 0.3715468645095825}, {"content": "<p>The Federal Judge ruled that <em>\u201cthe destruction to [Plaintiff]\u2019s home was intentional and foreseeable.\u201d</em></p>\n<p>In this case, a fugitive was sheltered inside the plaintiff's house and had no hostage. The plaintiff claimed the defendants (law enforcement) seized the plaintiff's house to capture the fugitive.</p>\n<p>The homeowner legal counsel, in a statement, declared it doesn't matter <em>&quot;whether the government official destroying your home has a business card from the Roads Department or the Police Department.&quot;</em></p>\n<p>While the damage was caused by the SWAT pursuing a fugitive and not from a prank phone call, it still bears enough similarities.</p>\n<p>The case could still go on appeal and be reversed, though.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 110, "chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 748, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6289081573486328, "relevance_score": 0.3710918426513672}, {"content": "official capacity&quot;? If so, it is bribery (a crime).</p>\n<p>Since LEOs can legally be hired to enforce the law when off duty, the legality of that hiring must depend on the &quot;particularity&quot; of the job. If an officer has the discretion to arrest Smith for a criminal act, but declines to do so, then you cannot pay him to act otherwise. Officers generally have the discretion to arrest (or not) anyone committing a crime, so hiring an officer to &quot;control traffic&quot; or &quot;work security&quot; is not influencing the officer to exercise a <em>particular</em> form of discretion.</p>\n<p>The crucial question would be, why <em>didn't</em> they enforce the law in the first place?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "content_length": 702}, "distance": 0.6289694309234619, "relevance_score": 0.3710305690765381}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>In [other] cases, as in other situations in which the imposition of vicarious liability is manifestly just, <strong>the \u201ccontributory\u201d infringer was in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others</strong> and had authorized the use without permission from the copyright owner. This case, however, plainly does not fall in that category. The only contact between Sony and the users of the Betamax that is disclosed by this record occurred at the moment of sale. The District Court expressly found that \u201cno employee of Sony, Sonam or DDBI had either direct involvement with the allegedly infringing activity or direct contact with purchasers of Betamax who recorded copyrighted works off the air.\u201d</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "content_length": 746, "chunk_index": 10, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6297663450241089, "relevance_score": 0.3702336549758911}, {"content": "is required under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal\nProcedure, to avoid a judgment of acquittal. Moreover, both as a\nmatter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient\nadministration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against\nany person unless the attorney for the government believes that the\nadmissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty\nverdict by an unbiased trier of fact. In this connection, it should be\nnoted that, when deciding whether to prosecute, the government\nattorney need not have in hand, at that time, all of the evidence upon\nwhich he/she intends to rely at trial, if he/she has a reasonable and\ngood faith belief that such evidence will be available and admissible\nat the time of trial. Thus, for example, it would be proper to\ncommence or recommend a prosecution even though a key witness may be\nout of the country, so long as there is a good faith basis to believe", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 24, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 944, "original_index": 38}, "distance": 0.6303063631057739, "relevance_score": 0.3696936368942261}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>If A defames B, the fact that the parties live and work in different countries is not a bar to a defamation lawsuit. This is not changed when  platform C is headquartered in a third country. A choice of law question does arise, which is important because B can always sue A, but they might have a legally-better outcome if they sue in the defendant's jurisdiction (plaintiff-friendly rules) yet they might be concerned over the &quot;home courts advantage&quot;. The EU has <a href=\"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R0864\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">a rule</a> applying &quot;to non-contractual obligations in civil and commercial matters&quot; which expressly excludes &quot;non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation&quot; (there is no uniform EU answer). <a href=\"https://tlblog.org/multistate-defamation-cross-border-torts-and-choice-of-law/\" rel=\"nofollow", "metadata": {"content_length": 983, "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6310399770736694, "relevance_score": 0.36896002292633057}, {"content": "<p><em>Waiver Of In Personam Jurisdiction Defenses</em></p>\n<p>Also, if a Plaintiff sues in a state where the Defendant has a right to object to state's jurisdiction, but the Defendant does not object to the state's jurisdiction in the first substantive document file in that court (usually either an &quot;answer&quot; or a &quot;motion to dismiss&quot;) then any objection to the jurisdiction of that state over the case is automatically waived. So, if the state where the Plaintiff lives doesn't have jurisdiction, but the Plaintiff sues the company there anyway, and that company sued doesn't immediately object, then the court has jurisdiction to proceed because the company's objections to filing the lawsuit in the wrong state are waived.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 275, "content_length": 749, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11}, "distance": 0.6310849189758301, "relevance_score": 0.3689150810241699}, {"content": "the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as\ndefined in section 929(a) of this title)), <strong>10 years (in the case of\nthe first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to\nfacilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug\ntrafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or\nboth.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 164, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 378, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6311116814613342, "relevance_score": 0.36888831853866577}, {"content": "<p>It also acts to relieve steam from the system when a judge may undoubtedly have convicted a defendant, but for whatever reason a jury (as representatives of broader community opinion) do not think a conviction is consistent with a just outcome, or have a different systematic perception of the evidence than a judge would.</p>\n<p>Notably in recent times, when Kenny Noye was infamously acquitted in 1985 for stabbing a policeman to death, it acted as the strongest possible signal of the public's loss of trust and confidence in the police (in contrast to the professional judiciary who habitually took the word of the police as gospel), and confirmed the need for the police reforms (which were already underway at the time, but followed a period of significant lawlessness and corruption amongst police officers in the 1970s).</p>\n<p>Noye was later jailed for an unconnected knife murder, if that bears on the likely &quot;accuracy&quot; of the jury's verdict on him in 1985.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 984, "original_index": 229, "chunk_index": 11, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6313269138336182, "relevance_score": 0.36867308616638184}, {"content": "<p>Watch some of the 1st Amendment auditors on YouTube and see cops saying that people are engaged in suspicious behavior and need to show they evidence (typically in the form of a government issued I\u2019d) that they are not engaged in criminal activity and if they don\u2019t comply they will be arrested.  Sometimes they even are arrested and charged with hindering an investigation to determine what crimes they have committed.  Typically such arrest gets tossed out and occasionally result in law suits and settlements.  Imagine if they weren\u2019t, if a cop just saying you didn\u2019t help him determine what crimes you had committed was enough to get you years in jail?</p>\n<p>Jury trials, and jury nullification, is one way society tries to reign in government overreach.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 229, "chunk_index": 14, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 766}, "distance": 0.6316671371459961, "relevance_score": 0.3683328628540039}, {"content": "<li>Driving with 1.1 permille or more means you are <em>also</em> in for a felony: very hefty fines are leveled, you can go to jail for up to 5 years, your driver's license is on the line for at least 6 months up to 5 years or permanent revocation. This falls under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__315c.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7315c StGB</a>, Endangering of Road Traffic. At this point, the BGH reasoned, you are absolutely incapable to drive a vehicle safely.</li>\n<li>Should you be caught with 1.6 permille or more, makes the test to determine if you ever can regain your driver's license mandatory. At this point, it is reasonable to suspect that the person in question is a chronic drunkard.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 21, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 733}, "distance": 0.6321958303451538, "relevance_score": 0.3678041696548462}, {"content": "Answer 4: <p>First off your title/question is missing a word (often, need, something between defendant and claim).  Reading the body of your post, I presume you mean need\u2026</p>\n<p>Prosecutors don\u2019t need to state any degree of certainty or particular evidence in their charging documents.  They don\u2019t even need to believe a particular defendant is guilty \u2014 it\u2019s legal to prosecute multiple people for the same crime at the same time, using the same evidence of each, and leave it up to a jury to decide, which if any are the \u201ctrue\u201d criminal.</p>\n<p>They need to have some evidence, but it needs not be conclusive or even particularly compelling.</p>\n<p>And it pretty much has to be that way, in order to avoid corruption. If they had to be \u201cright\u201d every time or they lost their job or even their freedom, there would be nigh irresistible pressure to <strong>be</strong> right, whatever that required.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 902, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 16}, "distance": 0.6327934265136719, "relevance_score": 0.3672065734863281}, {"content": "Question Title: Under what legislation has former U.S. President Trump been indicted for &quot;conspiracy to defraud the US&quot;?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>It's reported by <a href=\"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-66248859\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">BBC News</a> that Mr Trump is charged with four counts, including:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>conspiracy to defraud the US</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>tampering with a witness</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>conspiracy against the rights of citizens</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Focusing on the first bullet point to avoid asking multiple questions<sup>1</sup>:</p>\n<p><strong>What legislation introduces and/or covers the offence of defrauding the US?</strong></p>\n<hr />\n<p><sub><sup>1</sup>Although I would be interested in knowing more on the underlying legislation for a charge of conspiracy against the rights of citizens which I might post as a follow-up question</sub></p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 893, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 97, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6333913207054138, "relevance_score": 0.3666086792945862}, {"content": "Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>Should I be concerned?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Thats not a question about the law, and this site is off topic for actual legal advice questions, but there is an answer which is on-topic, not legal advice and worth saying.</p>\n<p>The person you have described is litigious in nature - they use the courts for their own ends, perhaps even for bullying.</p>\n<p>Should you be concerned?</p>\n<p>Yes - not that the person has any case against you, but because they can cost you time, money and reputation even without a case.  All they have to do is make it costly for you to fight a case against them - they can draw out the legal process so you have to retain legal assistance for longer, they can make disparaging remarks and claims about you, and they can withdraw the case at a later date with little negative outcome unless you sue them back.</p>\n<p>Get a lawyer, now, and see what you can do to head this off.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 937, "original_index": 252, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6339423656463623, "relevance_score": 0.3660576343536377}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>How many indictments does it take for Donald Trump to be imprisoned?</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>An unlimited amount. Imprisonment is usually authorized as a result of a conviction rather than from an indictment.</p>\n<p>Pretrial detention following an indictment but prior to a conviction is permitted, but discretionary in the judgment of the judge. Also, there is a right to post a judicially determined reasonable bond to obtain release from pretrial detention after one is indicted and before one is convicted in the vast majority of cases (including the ones that President Trump is facing).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>Can a person who is indicted, before running for president, become president?</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Yes. Indeed, the majority view of legal scholars (it is has never been tested in a real case) is that someone who is convicted and serving prison sentence can still become President if that is who the voters choose.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 16, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 990, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6344808340072632, "relevance_score": 0.3655191659927368}, {"content": "Answer 6: <p>At federal trial: to achieve a conviction the prosecutor must prove (i.e. persuade or convince the trier-of-fact) the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>\n<p>To bring the case to trial: the prosecutor must (among other things) believe the admissible evidence will probably (i.e. more likely than not) be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.</p>\n<p>Federal <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Justice Manual Title 9 9-27.220 - Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal\nprosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a\nfederal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be\nsufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the\nprosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 22, "original_index": 38, "content_length": 937, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6364354491233826, "relevance_score": 0.36356455087661743}, {"content": "for criminal cases than for civil. We are conscious that our own solution carries with it the anomaly that High Court judges who, with the nomenclature we propose, will take their title from a court with civil jurisdiction, will be sitting in a criminal court, but we see no way round this and in the end have decided to adopt the title of &quot;Crown Court&quot;, as representing the best solution.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 403, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 231, "chunk_index": 6}, "distance": 0.6367261409759521, "relevance_score": 0.36327385902404785}, {"content": "<h2>Conflicting objects of the legal system</h2>\n<p>Justice is only <em>one</em> of the purposes of our legal system. Others include efficiency and finality.</p>\n<p>Society can have only as much justice as it can afford - in both time and treasure. Yes, it would be more just if every case reached the correct result but it\u2019s just too damn expensive.</p>\n<p>Similarly, the legal process must come to a final and definitive end. It is neither efficient nor just for the process to be never ending.</p>\n<p>Finally, in a criminal matter, compared to any given individual, the state has near limitless resources. It\u2019s important not to allow the justice system to become a tool of persecution. You can\u2019t allow the state to keep feeding coins into the slot machine until they hit the jackpot of a jury that agrees with them.</p>\n<h2>Some jurisdictions do allow retrials in certain situations</h2>", "metadata": {"content_length": 890, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 197, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6368545293807983, "relevance_score": 0.36314547061920166}, {"content": "<li>Id.</li>\n<li>Id.; cf. MIRFIELD, supra note 12, at 283 (&quot;[T]he mental handicap of the\naccused may properly be considered . . . for the purposes of section 76(2)(b).&quot;). The\nleading case is <em>R v. Everett</em>. See Case Comment, <em>Reliability of Confession-Mental\nCondition of Suspect: R v. Everett</em>, 1988 CRIM. L. REV. 826 (Eng.).</li>\n<li>Confession and Breaches of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) (U.K.),\n<a href=\"http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_evidence_act/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_evidence_act/</a> (last visited Mar. 24, 2009).</li>\n<li>Id.</li>\n<li>Id.</li>\n<li>Id.</li>\n<li>See Richard Stone, <em>Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 78 of the Police and\nCriminal Evidence Act: Practice and Principles</em>, 3 WEB J. CURRENT LEGAL ISSUES, \u00a7 11. 1", "metadata": {"content_length": 916, "original_index": 66, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 16, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6377535462379456, "relevance_score": 0.36224645376205444}, {"content": "<li>For minor crimes, there is a procedure called <em>Strafbefehl</em>, which is important to understand. It is a letter with the offer of a sort of 'plea bargain,' which goes into effect unless you <em>refuse</em> it quickly and demand a trial. Doing nothing means you accept.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 269, "content_length": 288, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6378527879714966, "relevance_score": 0.3621472120285034}, {"content": "<p>[W]e propose that the new court be called the Crown Court and, from now on, we refer to it as such. Not all of us feel that this name is ideal, and the lay members in particular would prefer one which gave a clear indication of the kind of business dealt with by the court. The logical answer would be to have a Civil High Court and a Criminal High Court, but the majority of us feel that it would be anomalous to have a High Court sitting at a number of centres which will normally be presided over by Circuit judges only. Also, only a small proportion of the work of the new court will in fact be dealt with by High Court judges. An alternative of &quot;the Criminal Court&quot;, when contrasted with the High Court dealing with civil work, seems to most of us to suggest a lower level of court for criminal cases than for civil. We are conscious that our own solution carries with it the anomaly that High Court judges who, with the nomenclature we propose, will take their title from a court", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 998, "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 231, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6380621194839478, "relevance_score": 0.36193788051605225}, {"content": "<p>The article also mentions that certain states make this principle explicit by statute.  For instance, the <em>Kentucky Rules of Evidence</em>, Rule 503(a)(3):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Lawyer&quot; means a person authorized, <strong>or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized</strong> to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 373, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 266, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.639315128326416, "relevance_score": 0.360684871673584}, {"content": "Answer 5: <h2>Beyond Reasonable Doubt <em>is</em> an <a href=\"https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/onus_and_standard_of_proof.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">objective standard</a></h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Proving the accused\u2019s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof the Crown must achieve before you can convict [him/her] and <strong>the words mean exactly what they say \u2014 proof beyond reasonable doubt.</strong> When you finish considering the evidence in the trial and the submissions made by the parties you must ask yourself whether the Crown has established the accused\u2019s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 933, "original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 18, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6393551826477051, "relevance_score": 0.3606448173522949}, {"content": "Question Title: Why does Double Jeopardy apply if you confess?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>If you were tried for murder and acquitted - then you go out and publicly admit that they were wrong, you did actually murder that person. Where is the <em>justice</em> in not being able to be tried again in those circumstances? There is now no doubt that you were in fact guilty - why tie the court/police's hands?</p>\n<p>For example, the case of Emmett Till, where the murderers freely admitted that they did it after the fact, and could not be tried again.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 197, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 545}, "distance": 0.640038013458252, "relevance_score": 0.35996198654174805}, {"content": "Question Title: Is deliberate radio interference a crime?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I know that it is forbidden by FCC regulations to deliberately interfere with radio communications, but is it a crime?</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>Yes. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333\" rel=\"noreferrer\">47 U.S. Code \u00a7 333</a> (part of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended) bans willful or malicious interference. <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/501\" rel=\"noreferrer\">\u00a7 501</a> imposes a general penalty for any violation of the Communications Act that doesn\u2019t have a different penalty defined elsewhere in the Act. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $10,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Subsequent offenses are felonies punishable by up to 2 years in prison.</p>\n<p>In practice, this might result in only a civil action by the FCC. But it is forbidden by Congress and can be punished by imprisonment.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 33, "content_length": 945, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6403270363807678, "relevance_score": 0.3596729636192322}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h3>The section exempts the plaintiff from having to prove or even plead special damages when they instead plead and prove that the words were intended to cause pecuniary (even if not yet realized) damages</h3>\n<p>This statutory exception has also been adopted in Canadian jurisdictions and they have turned to U.K. jurisprudence to understand its meaning (<em>Almas et al. v. Spenceley</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/g17r5\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">[1972] 2 O.R. 429</a> (C.A.)):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Court was referred to a number of cases under the law as it then stood whereby it was strictly required that special damages be set forth in the pleading and whereby no plea of general damages would be entertained. This was changed in England by the Defamation Act, 1952 (U.K.), c. 66, s. 3 (1), and here by a similar section, s. 19(a) of the Libel and Slander Act, 1958\n(Ont.), c. 51 ...</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 54, "content_length": 926, "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6419855952262878, "relevance_score": 0.35801440477371216}, {"content": "</ol>\n<p>(1) A person is guilty of an offence if\u2014</p>\n<p>(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure\naccess to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable\nany such access to be secured;</p>\n<p>(b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured,\nis unauthorised; and</p>\n<p>(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the\nfunction that that is the case.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-misuse-act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Crown Prosecution Service Guidance for Computer Misuse Act</a>.</p>\n<p>(If the data is &quot;personal data&quot; then there is the offence of the deliberate or reckless obtaining, disclosing, procuring and retention of personal data without the consent of the data controller contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/170/enacted\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">s170 Data Protection Act 2018</a>.)</p>\n<p>[edit]</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 281, "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 981}, "distance": 0.6420081853866577, "relevance_score": 0.3579918146133423}, {"content": "<p>I have yet to read some kind of Federal or State source that argues that compatibilist free will is presumed to be had by anyone who commits a crime. For instance, I might construe the appeal of Grayson v. United States to not touch upon findings of guilt but instead punishment, sentencing, and incarceration (as if whether or not a defendant had free will influences those aspects of a criminal case rather than influences a finding of criminal guilt).</p>\n<p>Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "content_length": 598, "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6427863240242004, "relevance_score": 0.35721367597579956}, {"content": "Question Title: Am I liable for a school zone speeding ticket in New York State when blinking lights don&#39;t have a notice sign?", "metadata": {"content_length": 130, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 296, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.643401026725769, "relevance_score": 0.35659897327423096}, {"content": "Answer 3: <ol>\n<li>Indictments are just accusations. Until convicted, Trump is innocent.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Jailing people between indictment and trial is considered a necessary evil, not a good thing. It's done to either protect the public or ensure the defendent shows up. In cases where neither is a problem, the accused isn't locked up.</p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><p>Crimes and pubishment doesn't stop anyone for running for office, or from holding office. Only the voters can stop a candidate. Even an incarcerated inmate can legally be elected president.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>You need to accuse someone before you prove they did what you accuse them of. First the accusal, then the trial.</p>\n</li>\n</ol>\n\n\nTags: united-states, prison, us-president, indictment", "metadata": {"content_length": 753, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 16}, "distance": 0.6441742181777954, "relevance_score": 0.3558257818222046}, {"content": "<strong>Almost all \u2014 95 percent \u2014 of offenders ordered to pay restitution received a waiver allowing them to forgo payment because they had no\nability to pay.</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>State offenders have less of an ability to pay restitution, on average, than federal ones, who are often white collar criminals or immigration offenders.</p>\n<p>All criminal defendants with public defenders are by definition indigent. And <a href=\"https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">according to the U.S. Department of Justice</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>approximately 66% of felony Federal defendants and 82% of felony\ndefendants in large State courts were represented by public defenders.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Going to jail or prison deprives criminal defendants of a meaningful income while incarcerated and dramatically reduces their ability to earn income when they are released, again reducing their ability to pay a civil judgment.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 956, "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 185, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6441795825958252, "relevance_score": 0.3558204174041748}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>On the facts as presented, there <em>might</em> be some criminality here</h2>\n<p><strong>But it all depends on facts not stated</strong></p>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<h2>The son</h2>\n<p>Suicide is no longer a crime in NSW.</p>\n<h2>The mother</h2>\n<p>I can see no criminality here. It is an unfortunate fact that children take their own lives, and sometimes this happens after arguments with their parents: that doesn't make the parent criminally responsible.</p>\n<h2>The bullies</h2>\n<p>Some forms of bullying cross the line into <a href=\"https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/school-bullying-the-law/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">criminality</a>.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 31, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11, "content_length": 917}, "distance": 0.6446444988250732, "relevance_score": 0.35535550117492676}, {"content": "<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong>Retrospective legislation</strong></li>\n</ol>\n<p>Generally, this is prohibited under the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/6?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Article 7</a> Human Rights Act 1988:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No punishment without law</p>\n<p>1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.</p>\n<p>2 This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 113, "content_length": 957, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.6448575258255005, "relevance_score": 0.3551424741744995}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Pretty much anything that is neither illegal nor a pre-existing obligation can be consideration. A necessary pre-condition for any trade or contract is a different valuation of whatever is being traded. Inherent in that is that judges and legislators would value it differently.</p>\n<p>Given that,  who is to say that a contract with a surgeon to save the life of someones daughter, mother, pool boy, isn\u2019t valuable to the non-surgeon party? An overgrown lawn on someone else\u2019s property.</p>\n<p>Unconscionable contracts are a different matter, because they inherently involve either a reevaluation or someone else having an interest that wasn\u2019t addressed.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 672, "original_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6449769735336304, "relevance_score": 0.35502302646636963}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>To successfully bring a claim for maliicous falsehood in the UK, one has to show that one has suffered &quot;special damages&quot;, which are actual damages suffered as a direct consequence of a malicious, false statement.</p>\n<p>However, one does not have to do this if s3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952 applies. This is below:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In an action for slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious\nfalsehood, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special\ndamage\u2014</p>\n<p>(a) if the words upon which the action is founded are\ncalculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff and are\npublished in writing or other permanent form; or</p>\n<p>(b) if the said words\nare calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the plaintiff in respect\nof any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried\non by him at the time of the publication.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 908, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 54, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6455802321434021, "relevance_score": 0.3544197678565979}, {"content": "</ul>\n<p>All of those are <strong>just</strong> driving drunk, where no intent is needed. That's all separate from what comes when an accident happens. The moment your drunk driving harms anyone (or anything), it goes from just punishing your state of drunkenness to making your drunkenness a factor in a totally different crime, the one that revolves around doing the harm. Being intoxicated enough opens you, before anything else, to the reckless versions of harming or killing crimes.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Killing someone by driving them over under alcoholic influence is at least Fahrl\u00e4ssige T\u00f6tung under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__222.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7222 StGB</a> (Reckless Killing)</li>\n<li>Harming someone but not killing them while driving in such a manner is just Fahrl\u00e4ssige K\u00f6rperverletung under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__229.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7229 StGB</a> (reckless harming of someone)</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 22, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 981}, "distance": 0.6456116437911987, "relevance_score": 0.35438835620880127}, {"content": "persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall\nbe fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or\nboth.</p>\n<p>If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the\nconspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy\nshall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Fraudulent statements which are protected by the First Amendment are the exception more than they are the rule. When fraudulent statements of presenting existing facts, or fraudulent concealment of presently existing facts, seek to impair someone's legal rights, it is generally constitutional to punish that conduct criminally.</p>\n<p>At noted <a href=\"https://thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Fraud and Perjury</strong></p>\n<p>While, again, the First Amendment makes no categorical exception for", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 83, "content_length": 960, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6457985639572144, "relevance_score": 0.35420143604278564}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Graffiti artists are routinely found financially liable for their work, but assertions of copyright infringement by graffiti artists are vanishingly rare, so I don't know if that has ever happened in that context.</p>\n<p>In many jurisdictions, filing a lawsuit against someone waives any statute of limitations defense you may have against counterclaims filed by the person you are suing in any related matter. So, if that rule applies, a counterclaim for financial loss from graffiti could be brought in a copyright infringement lawsuit, even though the statute of limitations on the damages claim would otherwise have run. But, I don't know if such a rule applies to copyright infringement claims filed in federal court.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, copyright, liability", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 783, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 114, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6459478735923767, "relevance_score": 0.3540521264076233}, {"content": "<p>Simply lying about one's job or income to have a one-night stand would not constitute the s76 offence.</p>\n<p>Behaviour that causes psychological injury that amounts to recognisable psychiatric illness could be assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) contrary to s47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (<a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard\" rel=\"noreferrer\">see CPS Guidance for ABH</a>).</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 468, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 180}, "distance": 0.6463894844055176, "relevance_score": 0.3536105155944824}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I've just learned about <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement#Difference_from_vicarious_liability\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">vicarious liability</a>. It appears that it means that if you have a right to stop a copyright infringement and you're directly profiting from the fact that the infringement is occurring, you can be held liable for some of the damages.</p>\n<p>I was wondering how far the implication of direct financial interest can be stretched. The most concerning example would be ISPs or VPN providers potentially being held liable. After all, ISP or VPN company can block IP addresses which means they could easily make many forms of infringement much more difficult and they do make money off people using their services.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 794, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6464916467666626, "relevance_score": 0.3535083532333374}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>there are several examples outside of graffiti where copyright protects right-infringing works. Copyright still attaches to photographs taken that violate privacy rights: a paparazzi photographer has obtained copyright protection over a picture that he took of a celebrity while violating her rights to privacy, and a camp counsellor obtained copyright over a picture of a minor, taken without her parent's permission. A journalist has received copyright protection over an article that reveals state secrets. A student may obtain copyright protection for a painting of a minor killing a policeman, even though the work could constitute an illegal threat under criminal law.</p>\n<p>Copyright protection is denied to a work only if the work itself violates copyright. ...</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 790, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 112, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6469000577926636, "relevance_score": 0.3530999422073364}, {"content": "<p>According to my legal understanding, I would say that an\norganization that has been retroactively classified as a criminal organisation does not does not mean that it has committed a criminal offence. So that it has nothing to fear here. Am I right?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 113, "content_length": 256, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6474712491035461, "relevance_score": 0.35252875089645386}, {"content": "Question Title: What is a &quot;lead defendant&quot; in U.S. law?", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 18, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 65}, "distance": 0.6478563547134399, "relevance_score": 0.35214364528656006}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>See  <a href=\"https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol42/iss3/7\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Irina Khasin, <strong>Honesty Is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation\nPractices in the United States</strong>, 42 <em>Vanderbilt Law Review</em> 1029 (2021)</a>.</p>\n<h4>Pages 1031-3</h4>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0  In Europe, police officers pursue confessions with equal zeal but\nemploy different means to achieve the desired end.<sup>6</sup> The modern\nframework for police interrogations in England, established by the\nPolice and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE), focuses on the\nsearch for truth by seeking reliable confessions through the use of fair\npolice practices.<sup>7</sup> Rather than leaving the courts to delve into the\nemotional state of every defendant who challenges a confession,\nEnglish law establishes a uniform standard for the police to follow", "metadata": {"original_index": 66, "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 921}, "distance": 0.6480575203895569, "relevance_score": 0.3519424796104431}, {"content": "<p>You ask &quot;where is the justice?&quot; The justice of a system is assessed by its application across the totality of cases. Given that a system of prosecuting and judging that is run through humans will inevitably produce errors, the law has developed to promote a measure of &quot;justice&quot; across the entirety of the cases that are disposed of by the court rather than to futilely attempt to ensure the &quot;correct&quot; result in every particular case.</p>\n<p>The rule against double jeopardy has arisen out of this systemic concern for justice. It does not purport to secure the &quot;correct&quot; result in every case.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 640, "original_index": 197, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6481013298034668, "relevance_score": 0.3518986701965332}, {"content": "<li><strong>Legal Capacity.</strong> Assuming they had capacity to enter the original employment contract they probably have it now. Unless one of them was drunk. Or insane.</li>\n<li><strong>Genuine Consent.</strong> There is no information given that suggests this wasn\u2019t a genuine agreement.</li>\n<li><strong>Legality of Objects.</strong> It\u2019s not illegal to terminate employment.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 393, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 88}, "distance": 0.6483123302459717, "relevance_score": 0.3516876697540283}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>Pecuniary and special damages are different types of <a href=\"https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Law%20Review/LawRev%2014_2/LawReview14_2_poster.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">damages</a></h2>\n<p>Under UK law, a court can award:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Special damages: &quot;quantifiable financial losses <strong>up to the date of trial</strong>&quot;. These have to be proved.</li>\n<li>General damages: &quot;This term covers all losses which are not capable of exact quantification, and are further divided into pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.&quot;\n<ul>\n<li>Pecuniary damages: &quot;The major head of pecuniary damages is future loss\nof earnings&quot; - this is what s3(1) is primarily aimed at. In personal injury cases, it also covers future care costs - this could be relevant if the defamation caused mental harm.</li>", "metadata": {"original_index": 54, "content_length": 865, "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.648417055606842, "relevance_score": 0.35158294439315796}, {"content": "Question Title: Is there a viable cause of action for exposing someone of academic misconduct?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Is there a viable cause of action for exposing someone's academic misconduct from a country different than the one the exposed person lives and works.</p>\n<p>For instance if you live in a European country, the exposed person also lives in a different European country and the site that exposes him is based in America such as this case:<a href=\"https://rwincblog9.wordpress.com/2023/06/15/11/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://rwincblog9.wordpress.com/2023/06/15/11/</a>, are the elements of defamation made out?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 631}, "distance": 0.6490165591239929, "relevance_score": 0.3509834408760071}, {"content": "<p>All people above the age of criminal liability but below the age of legal adulthood are also handled through a juvenile court system in the U.S. (I don't think this applies to federal courts as they don't have one, but they so rarely prosecute crimes compared to the state... let alone juvie crimes) although judges may grant exception for legal juviniles to be tried in adult court if the crime is serious enough (or they're close to legal adulthood either).  Juvie Courts are less open than adult court and any juvenile record is sealed after the offender turns 18 (meaning that if you were a 13-year-old busted for taking the neighbor's car on a joy ride, it won't follow you to adulthood in the legal system.  The public memory will not always forget).</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 763, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "original_index": 211, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6490663290023804, "relevance_score": 0.35093367099761963}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://pcc.gov.au/uniform/Australian-Road-Rules-19March2018.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s305</a> provides an exemption for drivers of police vehicles if, in the circumstances, the police driver is taking reasonable care and it's reasonable that a provision of the road rules should not apply.</p>\n<p>Every police force in Australia has <a href=\"https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/PDF/IPS/National%20Guideline%20on%20Urgent%20Duty%20Driving%20and%20Pursuits.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">guidelines</a> on pursuit and an officer who follows those guidelines will almost certainly be found by a court to have been acting reasonably. Operating beyond the guidelines may also be reasonable in the circumstances.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "content_length": 718, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 149}, "distance": 0.6496258974075317, "relevance_score": 0.35037410259246826}, {"content": "Question Body: <p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q</a></p>\n<p>Let's take the song in a different direction:</p>\n<h2>TL;DR version</h2>\n<p>A duck repeatedly visits a lemonade stand, asking for grapes. Each time the proprietor says he has no grapes. After many repetitions the proprietor says &quot;If you come back, duck, I'll glue you to a tree and leave you all day, stuck!&quot;</p>\n<p>The duck reports this exchange to the police as an illegal threat. The proprietor claims that the duck harassed him.</p>\n<p>Is the proprietor guilty of some crime? Is the duck guilty of some crime? Assume that the duck is considered a person.</p>\n<h2>Long version</h2>\n<p>\ud83c\udfb6 A duck walked up to a lemonade stand, and he said to the man running the stand, &quot;Hey, [bum bum bum] got any grapes?&quot;</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 297, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 883}, "distance": 0.6497175693511963, "relevance_score": 0.3502824306488037}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>The last time this occurred was against a RCMP officer in 2008. The punishment imposed was simply the fact that they had been found in contempt.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 165, "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 78, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6513150930404663, "relevance_score": 0.3486849069595337}, {"content": "Question Body: <p><a href=\"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=578.018\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Missouri Revised Statute 578.018</a> vaguely states that a law enforcement officer and other officials &quot;MAY&quot; seek a warrant to enter onto private property to check., inspect or impound an animal etc. and must be preceded by an affidavit of probable cause I believe per my recollection.</p>\n<p>This is also stated by the fourth amendment concerning illegal search and seizure But of course with every Constitutional right and &quot;for the good of the people&quot; law, there are many loopholes used against the citizens such as, with reference to the 4th amendment, curtilage access, exigent circumstances, emergencies, protection of evidence,wellness checks to name a few.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 801, "original_index": 212, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6516819596290588, "relevance_score": 0.34831804037094116}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p><strike>There's nothing that I can find that specifically refers to any offence for allowing one's goats to roam free, but</strike> there are at least two national, and probably more at state / municipal level, laws that deal with obstructing the highway - therefore potentially making the goat owner liable for any injury or damage shown to be caused by their (in)action:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_30_42_00002_195648_1517807321068&amp;sectionId=14500&amp;sectionno=8B&amp;orderno=20\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Section 8B</a>, National Highways Act:</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway.--</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 236, "content_length": 698}, "distance": 0.6520801186561584, "relevance_score": 0.34791988134384155}, {"content": "Question Title: Gaslighting ; criminal or civil\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Gaslighting can be extremely damaging. Like Gang-Stalking, it is near impossible to prove it executed correctly.\nHow can gaslighting be prosecuted as a crime?</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 180, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 229, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6523171663284302, "relevance_score": 0.3476828336715698}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a7 22B. Rape of a child during commission of certain offenses or by use\nof force; penalties</p>\n<p>Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a\nchild under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against\nhis will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury\nand: . . .</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, \u00a7 22B.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a7 22C. Rape of a child through use of force by certain previously\nconvicted offenders; penalties</p>\n<p>Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a\nchild under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against\nhis will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury,\nand has been previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent or as a\nyouthful offender for: indecent assault and battery on a child under\n14 as set forth in section 13B; aggravated indecent assault and\nbattery on a child under 14 as set forth in section 13B \u00bd; indecent", "metadata": {"content_length": 995, "original_index": 211, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 15}, "distance": 0.6523354053497314, "relevance_score": 0.34766459465026855}, {"content": "<p>The actual conditions are pretty harsh (and deteriorating) but legally, this detention is not a punishment and should only happen to the extent that it facilitates your removal. That's why people should in principle be released as soon as it becomes clear that timely removal will be impossible. I have heard before of people being released <em>en masse</em> following a coup in their country of origin, as judges would deem the situation too unstable to expect a removal in the next 90 days.</p>\n<p>Depending on your personal situation, you might eventually find a way to qualify for some sort of residence permit (but having stayed illegally in the past basically disqualifies you for naturalisation, even decades down the line). Obviously you cannot work legally and if you are also stateless and have no ID, many other things are extremely complicated.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 863, "original_index": 235}, "distance": 0.6524468660354614, "relevance_score": 0.3475531339645386}, {"content": "<p>The <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">DMCA safe harbour provisions</a>, <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512</a>, may also apply, as compliance with these provisions could exclude any liability which the copyright holder was otherwise able to establish. However, \u201cthis is irrelevant unless [the defendant] is contributing to infringement; a noninfringer doesn\u2019t need a safe harbor\u201d: <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</em></a>, <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/flava-works-inc-v-gunter\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">689 F.3d 754</a> (CA7 2012).</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 788, "original_index": 188, "chunk_index": 14, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6527574062347412, "relevance_score": 0.3472425937652588}, {"content": "emotional state of every defendant who challenges a confession,\nEnglish law establishes a uniform standard for the police to follow\nwhen conducting interrogations.<sup>8</sup> To determine the admissibility of\nconfession evidence, the English courts consider whether police\nofficers have complied with PACE guidelines.<sup>9</sup><br />\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0  While some trickery by the police may be permissible under the provisions of PACE, English courts have held that the intentional\nmisrepresentation of evidence is unfair and violates the law.'<sup>10</sup>\nBecause this type of police deception compromises the veracity of a\nsuspect's statements, English judges routinely exclude any\nconfessions gained through deception as unreliable.11 Although\nresearch suggests that the use of fabricated evidence is rare in\nEnglish interrogations,<sup>12</sup> PACE enforces the prohibition by requiring the police to record every interview.<sup>13</sup> Even a violation of the", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 66, "content_length": 963, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6528153419494629, "relevance_score": 0.3471846580505371}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2>Read the terms</h2>\n<p>It\u2019s quite likely that, if you took this to court, the employer would be liable to pay your daughter interest on the underpayment and possibly be fined by the state for failing to follow the law.</p>\n<p>The terms probably are offering to pay the back pay with no interest and your daughter agreeing to confidentiality about the breach. Probably - I haven\u2019t read them.</p>\n<p>In other words, they\u2019re asking her to sign a contract saying she gets $XXX now, and can\u2019t make any further claims against them. Such releases are commonplace when setting a dispute and there\u2019s probably nothing underhanded going on. Probably - I haven\u2019t read them.</p>\n<p>Because minors can void contracts if they are not in their interest, they want you, as her legal guardian, to also sign so that can\u2019t happen. A relatively prudent precaution on their part.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 875, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 2, "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6530044078826904, "relevance_score": 0.34699559211730957}, {"content": "Answer 3: <h2>The school has a duty of care towards its students</h2>\n<p>If they discharged that duty, they are not responsible (liable); if they didn\u2019t, they are.</p>\n<p>The duty is discharged by acting reasonably. Without knowing what the school did or did not do and how, if at all, that contributed to the injury, it\u2019s impossible to guess if they met that standard.</p>\n<p>This is the same as the negligence standard that applies to everybody. The only difference with a school is that the duty always exists towards students and the duty is non-delegable, that is, even if control is passed to someone else (e.g. the bus or venue operator) the school still holds the duty (as well as the delegate).</p>\n\n\nTags: australia, minor, school, duty-of-care", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 15, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 754}, "distance": 0.6530191898345947, "relevance_score": 0.3469808101654053}, {"content": "Question Title: In California, simply spectating a &quot;sideshow&quot; is illegal (jailtime/fine). Is this constitutional?", "metadata": {"original_index": 176, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 123, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6534532308578491, "relevance_score": 0.3465467691421509}, {"content": "<p>Supposing that there is no such court order, and supposing that the police simply have it in for A, A can try to sue the city for harassment, including a <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">federal civil rights lawsuit</a>. Whether or not A will succeed depends on what the actual facts are.</p>\n\n\nTags: criminal-law", "metadata": {"original_index": 218, "content_length": 367, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6541593074798584, "relevance_score": 0.3458406925201416}, {"content": "<p>I had some initial difficulties finding explicit references to fines of spectators other than your own brief article.  <a href=\"https://www.greghillassociates.com/street-race-spectator-l-a-mc-47-15-reduced-to-infraction.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">But here's a whole case synopsis from LA</a>, specifically as an infraction of <a href=\"https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-133112\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">LA MC 47.15</a>.  Notably, at no point is there any mention of trying to contest the validity of the law; only if the particular requirements (intent to spectate and proximity) were met and the difficulty in the ticketing officer to remember those things without it being easy for the defense to undercut this.  They negotiated a plea deal, ultimately, to avoid jail time. Now not everyone is willing and able to contest things all the way up the appellate chain; even those that contest and appeal sometimes stop before reaching SCOTUS, for any number", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 997, "original_index": 176, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6543759107589722, "relevance_score": 0.34562408924102783}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p><strong>right to withdrawal</strong> the author may request works to be removed from public view, unpublished or deleted if they harm their image or honor. Exercising this right may incur a penalty or other monetary sanctions to the author, however (i.e. to repay the losses incurred to a third party).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Some of these rights might exist or be implied in other jurisdictions but they are explicitly stated in the Brazilian copyright law.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.projuris.com.br/blog/lei-de-direitos-autorais/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">ref_1</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9610.htm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">ref_2</a></p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 689, "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 47, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6546825766563416, "relevance_score": 0.34531742334365845}, {"content": "<p>Again, in every Australian police force, a pursuit, like the discharge of a firearm or taser, is a critical incident and will be subject to automatic investigation by a police integrity unit. Depending on the state, this may be part of the police force or an independent body.</p>\n<p>If the pursuit results in a death, there will be a coronial inquest which will examine the lawfulness of the pursuit. Anyone harmed by a pursuit may seek compensation which will also examine the lawfulness of the pursuit.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "original_index": 149, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 512}, "distance": 0.654795229434967, "relevance_score": 0.34520477056503296}, {"content": "Question Title: Did cops break the law by entering a rental home when invited by one party and denied by another?", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 161, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 113}, "distance": 0.6550293564796448, "relevance_score": 0.3449706435203552}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The constitutionality of each of the charges is well supported and there is no really viable First Amendment defense to any of them.</p>\n<p>There is literally a <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download\" rel=\"noreferrer\">U.S. Justice Department handbook on how to prosecute attempts to undermine the integrity of elections</a> accumulating the wisdom its has gleaned from doing precisely what it is doing in this indictment, successfully, for generations.</p>\n<p><strong>18 U.S.C. \u00a7 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)</strong></p>\n<p>This statute states that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against\nthe United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency\nthereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such\npersons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall\nbe fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or\nboth.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 975, "original_index": 83, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6552848219871521, "relevance_score": 0.3447151780128479}, {"content": "Tags: united-kingdom, defamation, tort, damages", "metadata": {"original_index": 54, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 47, "chunk_index": 8}, "distance": 0.6554317474365234, "relevance_score": 0.34456825256347656}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Whoever willfully and knowingly uses, or attempts to use, any passport\nissued or designed for the use of another; or</p>\n<p><strong>Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use any passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions therein contained, or\nof the rules prescribed pursuant to the laws regulating the issuance\nof passports; or</strong></p>\n<p>Whoever willfully and knowingly furnishes, disposes of, or delivers a\npassport to any person, for use by another than the person for whose\nuse it was originally issued and designed\u2014</p>\n<p><strong>Shall be fined under this title</strong>, <strong>imprisoned not more than</strong> 25 years (if\nthe offense was committed to facilitate an act of international\nterrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if\nthe offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as\ndefined in section 929(a) of this title)), <strong>10 years (in the case of", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 958, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 164, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.6564316749572754, "relevance_score": 0.3435683250427246}, {"content": "StGB</a> with &quot;Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung&quot; (&quot;kriminellen Vereinigung&quot; - &quot;association of criminals&quot; being defined as a group of people who meet with the purpose of committing crimes). That also does not seem applicable to the question,</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 279, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 101}, "distance": 0.6567507386207581, "relevance_score": 0.34324926137924194}, {"content": "<p>If you're acquitted, then once this comes to light, the prosecution is going to look for every possible crime which could apply that they're still allowed to charge you with. Oh, you hid the body (or conspired with your friends to do so)? That's separate from the murder; they're still allowed to go after you for that. In my state that has a maximum sentence of 12 years 6 months. Two counts of conspiracy to commit perjury? Distinct from the murder; up to 6 years each. Placing false evidence? That's another 10 years. Etc. You may not get life like you would with the murder, but you're going away for a long time, unless you've already fled the country.</p>\n<p>In general, I'd say that if you have multiple people willing to lie under oath for you, it's not surprising that you have a nonzero chance of getting away with stuff. It might be better to use such people to just lie and say you have an alibi, or that someone else did it, instead of this convoluted plan.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 292, "chunk_index": 6, "content_length": 977, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.657099187374115, "relevance_score": 0.342900812625885}, {"content": "owner and the location of the state, the cops would be unable to affect an arrest.  In this case, the cops would likely remand the owner to the custody of his legal guardian with a recommendation of some time in the time-out chair and/or loss of video game privileges (because that's the corrupting media influence these days, right?) at best.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 297, "chunk_index": 13, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 347}, "distance": 0.6571841239929199, "relevance_score": 0.3428158760070801}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>any person other than a witness who presently occupies the position of\nor has been elected, appointed, or designated to become any officer or\nemployee of government, including a legislator, judge, judicial\nofficer, juror, and any person participating as an advisor,\nconsultant, or otherwise in performing a governmental function</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>and a &quot;peace officer&quot; is</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>a duly appointed city, county, or state law enforcement officer</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>By statutory stipulation, a LEO is &quot;appointed&quot;, and they are an employee of the government. Then when you hire them to do something, do you do so &quot;with the intent to secure a particular result in a matter involving the exercise of the public servant's exercise of discretion in his or her\nofficial capacity&quot;? If so, it is bribery (a crime).</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "content_length": 870, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7}, "distance": 0.6574077010154724, "relevance_score": 0.3425922989845276}, {"content": "<p>Only after my trial starts do I reveal my pre-planned proof that the evidence is false.  My friends fly back to their home in some country without an extradition treaty before calling the judge and telling them that they made up the story about seeing me kill Bob.  I present proof that the suspected murder weapon was purchased after Bob disappeared and a better explanation for why it looked so suspicious, etc.</p>\n\n<p>With my being able to disprove all the central pieces of evidence, the jury finds me not guilty of Bob's murder.  Not long afterwards, Bob's body, and the actual murder weapon, are found.  This new evidence is damning and with it, they likely could convict me, but I claim double jeopardy when they try to charge me.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 745, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 292}, "distance": 0.6575759649276733, "relevance_score": 0.34242403507232666}, {"content": "Question Title: Unpacking &quot;If they have a question for the lawyers, they&#39;ve got to go outside and the grand jurors can ask questions.&quot; from former US Fed. prosecutor", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 179, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 156}, "distance": 0.6576206684112549, "relevance_score": 0.3423793315887451}, {"content": "Question Title: Does the First Amendment shield the previous president from the August 2023 D.C. Indictments?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>The former president is <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">charged</a> with:</p>\n<p>Count 1: 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)</p>\n<p>Count 2: 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)</p>\n<p>Count 3: 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)</p>\n<p>Count 4: 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)</p>\n<p>As I understand it, the charges are based on what was said by Donald Trump.  Is there a standard / caselaw that provides a speech litmus test to determine whether any of said counts are violated?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 795, "original_index": 83, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6576478481292725, "relevance_score": 0.34235215187072754}, {"content": "<p>A person might have explicit or implied permission to enter a cinema building, but the person doesn't have licence to do anything they want whatsoever in the building. When they enter an area without permission, or they exceed their licence, they commit trespass. If they watch a film and leave with no intention to pay, then they commit s3 Theft.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 354, "original_index": 118}, "distance": 0.6577911376953125, "relevance_score": 0.3422088623046875}, {"content": "Answer 5: <p>I may be wrong, but it sounds like the question is flawed in that it makes inaccurate assumptions... namely; our legal system specifically addresses free will. It does not.</p>\n<p>To operate effectively we assume a person cannot be found guilty of committing a crime unless they did so with the ability to make a choice.</p>\n<p>From a recent ruling:</p>\n<h2>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KAHLER v. KANSAS CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 18\u20136135. Argued October 7, 2019\u2014Decided March 23, 2020</h2>\n<p><em>from page 3, paragraph 1</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Defining the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness requires balancing complex considerations, among them the workings of the brain, the purposes of criminal law, and the ideas of free will and responsibility. This balance should remain open to revision as new medical knowledge emerges and societal norms evolve.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "chunk_index": 9, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 956}, "distance": 0.6580150723457336, "relevance_score": 0.34198492765426636}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Probably murder.</p>\n<p>Because &quot;<em>victim 2 was then shot by this man in <strong>self defense</strong>&quot;</em> hasn't been determined by a neutral third party investigation or jury - it is just his own rationale for shooting.</p>\n<p>He may not be charged, or he may be tried and acquitted on the basis of self defense, but he isn't in a position of authority to simply make a &quot;rightful death&quot; call on his own, (<em>is there such a thing?</em>) and dispose of all the evidence.</p>\n<p>Obstruction of justice would probably be the minimum charge for covering up evidence of the murder of Victim #1.</p>\n<p>There is really no valid reason for covering up a double homicide, and his actions could easily result in a double murder charge.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 107, "content_length": 770, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.658333957195282, "relevance_score": 0.341666042804718}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>In the United States, <a href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-3-1/ALDE_00000858/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">prohibition against double jeopardy is a <em>constitutional</em> protection</a>. As long as one was actually at jeopardy for an offence by a particular sovereign, that sovereign may not subsequently prosecute the accused for the same wrong. In other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., it has <a href=\"https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/abuse-double.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer\">a less strict form</a>, even though generally, special pleas of <em>autrefois acquit</em> would be available.</p>\n<p>It is also not the case that after an apparent &quot;confession&quot; in public that there is &quot;no doubt&quot; about a person's guilt. No evidence is &quot;certain&quot; in law without being tested in court.</p>\n<p>Also, you propose:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 893, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 197}, "distance": 0.6585913896560669, "relevance_score": 0.3414086103439331}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Legislatures are free to declare illegal whatever they want (within Constitutional limitations, obviously).  A bill of attainder declares a defendant guilty without trial.  Targeting a company with laws isn't particularly noteworthy, this is done all the time, usually to the company's benefit.</p>\n<p>Nothing Florida is doing would be considered a bill of attainder.  Special conditions that have been set by the state are always available to be re-legislated.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 478, "original_index": 268}, "distance": 0.658673107624054, "relevance_score": 0.34132689237594604}, {"content": "permission of use or of enjoyment of fruits and benefits, in interest,\n  in profit shares or other periodically paid income, the person\n  entitled has a right to a share corresponding to the duration of his\n  entitlement.</p></li>\n  </ol>\n  \n  <p>Section 102 Reimbursement of costs of production</p>\n  \n  <p>A person who has a duty to hand over fruits may claim reimbursement of\n  the costs of producing the fruits to the extent that they reflect\n  proper business practices and do not exceed the value of the fruits.</p>\n  \n  <p>Section 103 Allocation of charges</p>\n  \n  <p>A person who has a duty to bear the charges on a thing or a right\n  until a specified time or from a specified time on must, unless\n  otherwise provided, bear the periodically recurring charges in the\n  proportion of the period of time of his duty, and bear other charges\n  to the extent that they are payable during the period of time in which\n  he has the duty.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 200, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 957}, "distance": 0.6592288017272949, "relevance_score": 0.3407711982727051}, {"content": "<h2>Some jurisdictions do allow retrials in certain situations</h2>\n<p>The rule against double jeopardy in the USA is a constitutional protection and, unless that changes, it is absolutely prohibited.</p>\n<p>Other common law jurisdictions such as the UK and some Australian states allow the rule to be broken for serious crimes (like murder) where there is \u201cfresh and compelling evidence\u201d. An unsworn confession by the accused isn\u2019t very compelling.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 197, "content_length": 453}, "distance": 0.659433126449585, "relevance_score": 0.34056687355041504}, {"content": "<p><em>Brown on Defamation</em> confirms that generally:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>there must be an express allegation that the plaintiff has suffered some particular special damage as a result of the slander, unless there is some special statutory provision foregoing an allegation of special damages where the words are calculated to cause pecuniary damage with respect to an office, profession or trade.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h3>This is not redundant with the maliciousness element</h3>\n<p>Malice need not be the intent to cause pecuniary loss. Malice can be made out by any improper motive, including spite, or an intention to cause pure reputational harm with no regard for pecuniary damages.</p>\n<p>In my view, this section has the greatest effect at the pleading stage. I agree that in many (although not all) malicious falsehood cases, proof of malice will double for proof of an intention to cause pecuniary damages.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 920, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 54}, "distance": 0.6596552133560181, "relevance_score": 0.34034478664398193}, {"content": "Question Title: Why don&#39;t victims often sue perpetrators / suspects?", "metadata": {"original_index": 185, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 72, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6596921682357788, "relevance_score": 0.3403078317642212}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=63.60&amp;full=true\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Washington</a> statutorily recognizes the right of publicity. That right is &quot;freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by contract or inter vivos transfer&quot;. However, permission is not required in case of &quot;matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational, newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire, and parody&quot;. Therefore defendants could argue that permission is not required. If we assume that there was contractual licencing of the right of publicity, the question is whether the contract can not be repudiated. <a href=\"https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.28.030\" rel=\"noreferrer\">RCW 26.28.030</a> says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A minor is bound, not only by contracts for necessaries, but also by\nhis or her other contracts, unless he or she disaffirms them within a", "metadata": {"content_length": 992, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 125, "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6600908637046814, "relevance_score": 0.3399091362953186}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Jury trials in common law jurisdictions are simply a fact, and don't need or get justification. Jury trials are ancient. In England the Scandinavians had an assembly, the  \u00feing (&quot;thing&quot;) for deciding matters, such as guilt. Under Norman rule this became systematized, to the point that the Magna Carta Art. 39 states the law that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his\nfreehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be\noutlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed\nagainst him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful\njudgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 229, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 715, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6602307558059692, "relevance_score": 0.33976924419403076}, {"content": "Answer 5: <p>You would need some things to add up for \u201cguilty beyond reasonable doubt\u201d.</p>\n<p>First, did the police see Bob lying on the ground, stabbed in the back, in a way that he couldn\u2019t do himself and that couldn\u2019t be an accident? Without an injured Bob, there is reasonable doubt that a crime happened at all.</p>\n<p>Could Charles by mistaken? If Alice is one of 100 customers to enter Bobs store that day, then it could easily be a person who looks similar to Alice. If Bob, Alice and Charles have been coworkers for years, it is most likely no mistake. Unless Alice has an identical twin.</p>\n<p>Could Charles be lying? With your story, I\u2019d have the very reasonable doubt that Charles might be the attacker, and trying to put the blame on Alice. So your facts wouldn\u2019t be enough.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 793, "original_index": 258}, "distance": 0.66023850440979, "relevance_score": 0.33976149559020996}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p><b>In no US jurisdiction does a failure to rescue someone constitute murder.</b> Nor is there generally a common law duty to rescue. In California, there is a statutory duty to rescue, but this falls outside its scope. However, certain other states impose a greater duty to rescue; for instance, under Vermont law:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>A person who knows that another is exposed to grave\n  physical harm shall... give reasonable\n  assistance to the exposed person</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 102, "content_length": 496, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6607866883277893, "relevance_score": 0.3392133116722107}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>A registered owner of a vehicle may respond by mail to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by submitting, within 30 days from the mailing of the citation, a certificate of innocence swearing or affirming that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and by providing a photocopy of the owner\u2019s driver license. <em>A jurisdiction that receives a certificate of innocence under this paragraph <strong>shall dismiss the citation</strong> without requiring a court appearance by the registered owner or any other information from the registered owner other than the swearing or affirmation and the photocopy.</em> The citation may be reissued only once, only to the registered owner and only if the jurisdiction verifies that the registered owner appears to have been the driver at the time of the violation. A registered owner may not submit a certificate of innocence in response to a reissued citation.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 165, "content_length": 957, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.660831868648529, "relevance_score": 0.33916813135147095}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></p>\n<p>Solicitation of a crime is a crime in itself, and will be punished in the same way as the actual crime.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Als Anstifter wird gleich einem T\u00e4ter bestraft, wer vors\u00e4tzlich einen\nanderen zu dessen vors\u00e4tzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat bestimmt\nhat.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>Who intenitionally affects someone to intentionally commit an ulawful act, is punished as an instigator to the same extent as the perpetrator.</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__26.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">\u00a7 26 Anstiftung StGB</a> (StGB = Strafgesetzbuch, the German penal code).</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 873, "original_index": 101, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6611063480377197, "relevance_score": 0.3388936519622803}, {"content": "<p>However, I doubt there will be any prosecutions in these particular circumstances. In which case the behaviour was legal.</p>\n<p><sup>*In contrast, <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Penalty for wilful obstruction s137 Highways Act 1980</a> starts, &quot;If a person, without lawful authority or excuse&quot;. This is what Just Stop Oil rely on when they slow-walk along a road. They have the excuse of exercising the right to freedom of protest; they excercise their rights within the constraints so far tolerated by the authorities. Fewer people seem to be aware of the &quot;lawful authority or excuse&quot; than claim awareness of the Highways Act.</sup></p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 120, "content_length": 723, "chunk_index": 9, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6623489260673523, "relevance_score": 0.3376510739326477}, {"content": "<p>\u201cAnyone without a valid ticket is required to provide their details to a TfL inspector so a penalty fare can be issued. This is not a policing matter. <strong>Officers only become involved where details are not provided or where someone tries to leave when challenged.</strong></p>\n<p><strong>\u201cThe woman involved in this incident was asked to provide her ticket as she got off the bus, but did not do so. She was spoken to by a TfL inspector, then by a PCSO and finally by a police officer. She continued to try to walk away and did not provide her ticket for inspection.</strong></p>\n<p><strong>\u201cShe was arrested on suspicion of fare evasion and was handcuffed. When officers were able to take her ticket from her so that the TfL inspectors could check it, they were able to confirm it was valid. She was immediately de-arrested and her handcuffs were removed.</strong></p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 877, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 158}, "distance": 0.6631438136100769, "relevance_score": 0.3368561863899231}, {"content": "Question Title: Can one use a personal injury lawyer when the police won&#39;t act?", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 92, "content_length": 83, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6631630659103394, "relevance_score": 0.33683693408966064}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Under the common law, you'd be committing a felony: theft by false pretenses. Each state has probably replaced the common law definition with a statute, and additionally there'd be a federal felony law for fraud via the internet. Even if the retailer noticed it and cancelled the transaction, they could still report you for attempted theft.</p>\n\n<p>It is true that you'd be unlikely to face prosecution with higher priorities in law enforcement. Nevertheless it is a terrible idea to commit multiple felonies just because you are playing the odds that no one will care enough to charge you.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 58, "content_length": 608, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.6635756492614746, "relevance_score": 0.3364243507385254}, {"content": "<p>If you e.g. affirm, as shown by your signature with an associated declaration that &quot;everything contained in this document is true to the best of my knowledge&quot;, that you intend to do X or that you have never done X but that is false, you can easily be sued, because you committed fraud. It could even be criminal perjury, in cases where the company asks questions that pertain to security clearances or things about bank accounts which often require swearing to facts, as required by law. It doesn't affect the validity of the contract, it bears on the punishment that you will receive for making false statements.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 630, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 217, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6639232635498047, "relevance_score": 0.3360767364501953}, {"content": "<p><strong>However</strong> in making her entitlement to the reward known, Sania may not cross the line into coercion or blackmail (\u00a7\u00a7 240, 253 StGB). Should Sania say, without explanation &quot;I demand a payment of 100\u00a0\u20ac for the airpods&quot;, that could be coercion, as she is not entitled to that. If she however says &quot;I am entitled to finder's reward of 7,50\u00a0\u20ac, and had expenses of 2.50\u00a0\u20ac to get the phone to you, therefore you owe me 10\u00a0\u20ac&quot; the picture is different - that is <em>exactly</em> the amount that the law says she would be owed. This is because atop the actual reward Sania can reclaim reasonable fees, such as the bus fare to get the phone to Tam under <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__970.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">\u00a7 970 BGB</a>. Under \u00a7 972 BGB, Sania does not have to relinquish the item till the reward and expenses have been paid but also does not become the owner of the item.</p>\n<h4>The Fundb\u00fcro</h4>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 77, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 950, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6641747355461121, "relevance_score": 0.33582526445388794}, {"content": "<p>Even when a defendant does have assets and some actual ability to pay, those assets may be protected from civil lawsuit judgments, for example, by a homestead exemption for an owned personal residence, or an exemption from creditors for pensions and IRAs. Also assets of a criminal defendant that aren't exempt from creditors are often seized by creditors of the criminal defendant due to inability to pay monthly payments during a criminal prosecution due to loss of income and employment, or collapse of a self-employed business, or use of available funds to pay a private criminal defense lawyer.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 606, "original_index": 185}, "distance": 0.6643517017364502, "relevance_score": 0.3356482982635498}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Almost. Under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 26</a> Equity Act 2010, the offence of harassment does not include discrimination based on &quot;<em>marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity</em>&quot;:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Harassment</strong></p>\n<p>(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if\u2014</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of\u2014</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(i)violating B's dignity, or</p>\n<p>(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(2)A also harasses B if\u2014</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>(3)A also harasses B if\u2014</p>\n<ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 994, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 262}, "distance": 0.6643848419189453, "relevance_score": 0.3356151580810547}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>A minor is bound, not only by contracts for necessaries, but also by\nhis or her other contracts, unless he or she disaffirms them within a\nreasonable time after he or she attains his or her majority, and\nrestores to the other party all money and property received by him or\nher by virtue of the contract, and remaining within his or her control\nat any time after his or her attaining his or her majority.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You could have repudiated that agreement some years ago, but that reasonable time has passed.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 539, "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 125, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6646396517753601, "relevance_score": 0.3353603482246399}, {"content": "<p>Additionally, one should note that this is a Federal Question. The First Amendment, through the Due Process clause applies to states as well. Therefore, there will be extremely little discrepancy (if any - first impression issues being the main differences probably) between the States,.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The FCC can limit profanity on air.</a> Additionally,  <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1464\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464,</a> (Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.\n) prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication. </p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 850, "original_index": 193, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.6646937131881714, "relevance_score": 0.3353062868118286}, {"content": "<p>However, if you did sell or give away the model to a third party, that would be a lawful transfer of title in the object itself, even though it is a breach of contract. An innocent third party (i.e. one who has no knowledge of the breach) would be a lawful owner and could do what they liked with the object and, under the first-sale doctrine, is not bound by the licence.</p>\n<p>If you were to die, the executor or administrator of your estate would be bound by the terms of the licence (whether they knew about them or not), and if they breached them, they would be liable for that breach. If done in good faith, they could seek indemnity from the estate, but if the estate has insufficient funds or has been finalised, they would be personally liable. This is largely theoretical as the copyright owner would have to pursue their claim so promptly that unless they were actively monitoring the death notices for anyone who ever downloaded their model, they would miss their chance.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 991, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 172}, "distance": 0.664781928062439, "relevance_score": 0.33521807193756104}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h3>Moral luck</h3>\n<p>You have raised the issue of <em>moral luck</em>, a long recognized problem in criminal theory. The classic expositions of this issue are by <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Thomas Nagel</a>, in his chapter, &quot;<a href=\"https://rintintin.colorado.edu/%7Evancecd/phil1100/Nagel1.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Moral Luck</a>&quot; (1979) and <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Bernard Williams</a>, &quot;<a href=\"https://bibliotecamathom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/williams_-_moral_luck.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Moral Luck</a>&quot; (1976). Specifically, you are describing what they call <em>outcome</em> luck, or <em>consequential</em> luck.</p>\n<p>Driving while intoxicated vs. driving while intoxicated and causing death is not the only example where moral luck results in a distinction in punishment. Other examples are:</p>\n<ul>", "metadata": {"content_length": 939, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6647966504096985, "relevance_score": 0.3352033495903015}, {"content": "<li>Religious freedom, or establishment of religion, has nothing do to with it. Much of the common-law understanding was driven from England where the constitutional settlement was completely different. Despite the mention of God and the Devil, this was a completely stock phrase that was devoid of any real religious content.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>My main sources here are 19th century legal textbooks, which contained some citations to case law. There does not seem to have been very much statutory activity.</p>\n<p>Quoting from Joel Prentiss Bishop's <em>New criminal procedure; or, New commentaries on the law of pleading and evidence and the practice in criminal cases</em> (Chicago: T. H. Flood, 4th ed., 1895), <a href=\"https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112104125069&amp;seq=346\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 501 in volume 1</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 861, "original_index": 25, "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6648944020271301, "relevance_score": 0.3351055979728699}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Answer according to the OP's comment:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The question is in the title. Focus on answering the question...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Namely:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In American criminal law, do prosecutors who seek to prosecute a defendant claim to have evidence of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/england-and-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-england-and-wales-tooltip-container\">england-and-wales</a></p>\n<p><strong>SHORT ANSWER</strong></p>\n<p>Although still used occasionally by some, &quot;<em>beyond a reasonable doubt</em>&quot; is not a prosecutor's benchmark.  It is a colloquial courtroom phrase (more often than not you will now hear &quot;<em>must be sure that the defendant is guilty</em>&quot; these days).</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "original_index": 38, "content_length": 951, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6653027534484863, "relevance_score": 0.33469724655151367}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__26.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">\u00a7 26 Anstiftung StGB</a> (StGB = Strafgesetzbuch, the German penal code).</p>\n<p>However you will probably not charged with conspiracy. \u00a7 277 StGB makes the preparation of certain crimes a punishable offense (even if the actual crime is not executed), but is pretty much limited to human trafficking, some drug related offenses, causing nuclear accidents and wielding weapons of mass destruction. Assault is not in there.</p>\n<p>If you order people to commit assault on a regular basis and the group includes at least three people, you might be charged according to <a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__129.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">\u00a7 26", "metadata": {"original_index": 101, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 742}, "distance": 0.6653624773025513, "relevance_score": 0.33463752269744873}, {"content": "Answer 5: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/westvirginia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;westvirginia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;westvirginia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-westvirginia-tooltip-container\">westvirginia</a></p>\n<p>The person may face felony charges leading up to 1-5 years in jail and a fine for each count. Even if the self-defense argument prevails and no other charges are pressed against them, they are still guilty of concealing the stabbing victim's body. Also assuming the self-defense claim for the second death is valid, the second body would not fall under this statute as the death was not result of criminal activity.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>WV Code \u00a7 61-2-5a</p>\n<p>(a) Any person who, by any means, knowingly and willfully conceals, attempts to conceal or who otherwise aids and abets any person to conceal a deceased human body where death occurred as a result of criminal activity is guilty of a felony</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107, "chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 987}, "distance": 0.665428102016449, "relevance_score": 0.334571897983551}, {"content": "<p>Thus, one of the main purposes of the law is to be the arbiter between people and sole source of violence so they do not feel the need to take violence into their own hands.</p>\n<p>The reason, thus, that a drunk driver who kills people is punished more is simply because the law needs to do that if it wishes to prevent many people from feeling their desire for revenge is not fulfilled and falling into lawlessness.</p>\n<p>As for drunk driving by itself, it is only punished as a preventative measure.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 509, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 14, "original_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6658005714416504, "relevance_score": 0.3341994285583496}, {"content": "Answer 6: <h2>0 <em>direct</em> witnesses can be enough</h2>\n<p>It is upon the trier of fact to evaluate what happened. A case can be held <strong>entirely</strong> based on evidence with 0 witnesses that actually saw the act to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, all those analysts and investigators, and other experts are to be called to explain the evidence and their significance... as witnesses. Not calling them as (<em>indirect</em>) witnesses means, the evidence should not come in under <a href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/305/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)</a>.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 258, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 653}, "distance": 0.6663311719894409, "relevance_score": 0.3336688280105591}, {"content": "Question Title: Is there such a thing as &#39;attempted copyright infringement&#39; in the UK?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I've recently read an article about a proposed bill that would criminalise attempted copyright infringement in the US. link - <a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2007/05/ippa07/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.wired.com/2007/05/ippa07/</a></p>\n<p>I was wondering if the UK had any legislation on this. Any help is much appreciated. Cheers!</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 459, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 42, "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6669400334358215, "relevance_score": 0.33305996656417847}, {"content": "which the person arrived</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>which rules out a person why &quot;just happens to be there&quot;, and it does include a person who was driving by and decided to watch.</p>\n<p>It is specifically limited to &quot;a Street Race conducted on a public street or highway&quot; or &quot;a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility&quot;. These terms are also defined \u2013 it does for example not include watching a street mime. The events being watch are violations of the state vehicle code (speeding, reckless driving). All of this would pass muster if constitutionally challenged \u2013 it is a narrowly-tailored restriction on the right to assembly that is necessary for a compelling government interest.</p>\n<p>\u00a710.50.025 also makes it</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>unlawful for any person to knowingly encourage, promote, instigate,\nassist, facilitate, aid, or abet</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 941, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 176}, "distance": 0.6671862006187439, "relevance_score": 0.3328137993812561}, {"content": "<p>Or could the retributive future refusal generally be seen as contempt of court and contempt of the law, in trying to evade future repercussions for any potential unlawful conduct?</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 145, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 186, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.668119490146637, "relevance_score": 0.33188050985336304}, {"content": "<li>Id.</li>\n<li>See Richard Stone, <em>Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 78 of the Police and\nCriminal Evidence Act: Practice and Principles</em>, 3 WEB J. CURRENT LEGAL ISSUES, \u00a7 11. 1\n(1995), <a href=\"http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/stone3.html;\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/stone3.html;</a> cf. R v. Houghton, (1978) 68 Crim.\nApp. 197, 206 (Eng.) (&quot;Evidence would operate unfairly against an accused if it had\nbeen obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused\nperson or by a trick or by conduct of which the Crown ought not to take advantage.&quot;)\n(citations omitted); MIRFIELD, supra note 12, at 12 (recognizing the &quot;emerging\nconsensus in official circles&quot; that the kind of tactics &quot;advocated by Inbau, Reid, and\nBuckley, as well as being arguably unethical, is also inimical to the gathering of\nreliable confession evidence&quot;).</li>\n<li>MIRFIELD, supra note 12, at 199.</li>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 66, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 977, "chunk_index": 17}, "distance": 0.6682056784629822, "relevance_score": 0.3317943215370178}, {"content": "<p>The guidance that the courts give on those questions is fairly squishy.</p>\n<p>Under subsection (a)(2), for instance, threats of physical force would have to be &quot;true threats&quot; to satisfy First Amendment analysis, meaning that they were \u201cserious expressions conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence.\u201d <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/counterman-v-colorado-2\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Counterman v. Colorado</em>, No. 22-138, 9 (U.S. Jun. 27, 2023)</a>. And there is no bright-line test to determine whether a threat is such a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence; instead, courts must look at \u201call of the contextual factors\u201d that could inform that answer. <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/virginia-v-black-5#p359\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Virginia v. Black</em>, 538 U.S. 343, 345 (2003)</a>.</p>\n<p>Subsection (b) appears to require the same totality-of-the-circumstances analysis rather than using any bright-line test:</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 65, "content_length": 999}, "distance": 0.6684008240699768, "relevance_score": 0.3315991759300232}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>Can the admission of guilt be used in the new case?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The criminal collateral estoppel effects of a pardon flow from the adjudication on the merits which is vacated. Also, comity between sovereigns and public policy mitigate such a rule. The pardon power would not be very interesting if it routinely resulted in a new prosecution that was conducted on a summary basis via a preclusion doctrine such as collateral estoppel.</p>\n<p>In many cases, the statute of limitations will have run on the original crime or there will be no parallel state law crime, but this is not always the case.</p>\n<p>Also, I would disagree with the statement that a pardon always implies an admission of guilt to the crime for which a pardon was granted, even though that statement is often used rhetorically.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 276, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 826}, "distance": 0.6684180498123169, "relevance_score": 0.3315819501876831}, {"content": "<p>As such, if there is something to be learned about how the American legal system works, it should be able to be derived from the U.S. Constitution. Although the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not explicitly detail how free will is presumed to exist within those who have committed a crime in the land of the U.S., case law [such as United States v. Grayson 438 U.S. 41 (1978)] explicates this matter. Furthermore, common law tradition of free will being a component of a crime having been committed is codified in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rather than explicitly argued.</p>\n<p>So, two things:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>As part of guaranteeing due process, it's required that for something to qualify as a crime, it must have been committed via free will. (It's not fair to consider otherwise)</li>\n<li>As part of due process, it is presumed that all persons have free will.</li>\n</ol>\n<p><strong>Answer: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.</strong></p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 983, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "chunk_index": 13}, "distance": 0.6687978506088257, "relevance_score": 0.3312021493911743}, {"content": "&quot;... there are certain presumptions which react against accused, such as the presumption of sanity, considered below in sec. 584, of knowledge of the law, see infra sec. 586, and that a person intends the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts, ...&quot; 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, p. 893, sec. 579.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>I don't know that it's possible to intend to do something without free will, so I think these presumptions also imply a presumption of free will.</p>\n<p>The citation to a law encyclopedia would seem to indicate that these presumptions come from common law, and not from any particular statute (if the presumptions came from statute, they'd cite the statute instead.)</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 175, "content_length": 705, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6689223051071167, "relevance_score": 0.3310776948928833}, {"content": "Question Title: How many indictments before imprisonment?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Donald Trump, ex-president of U.S.A., has many indictments on him, but yet he is still roaming as a free citizen.</p>\n<h2>Questions:</h2>\n<ol>\n<li><p>How many indictments does it take for Donald Trump to be imprisoned?</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Can a person who is indicted, before running for president, become president?</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>What's the purpose of indicting Mr. Trump if indictments are only an accusation?</p>\n</li>\n</ol>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 16, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 504}, "distance": 0.6691648960113525, "relevance_score": 0.33083510398864746}, {"content": "of earnings&quot; - this is what s3(1) is primarily aimed at. In personal injury cases, it also covers future care costs - this could be relevant if the defamation caused mental harm.</li>\n<li>Non-pecuniary losses: Pain and suffering, Loss of amenity, and damages for the injury itself. Unlikely to be relevant in a defamation case.</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n<li>Provisional damages: &quot;The general rule is that only one award of damages\ncan be made. If damage turns out to be more serious\nthan was anticipated at the time of the award, there\nis no further action available to the claimant. This\ncan cause obvious hardship in personal injury cases.\nUnder the terms of the Supreme Court Act 1981\n(s.32a) the court has power to make a provisional\naward that allows the claimant to return to court\nshould further anticipated serious deterioration occur.&quot;</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 54, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "content_length": 861}, "distance": 0.6691892147064209, "relevance_score": 0.3308107852935791}, {"content": "<p>(a)  his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the\ncommission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type\nthe other person committed; or</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(b)  his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the\ncommission of an offence and have been reckless about the commission\nof the offence (including its fault elements) that the other person in\nfact committed.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(3A)  Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6).</p>\n<p>(4)  A person cannot be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling\nor procuring the commission of an offence if, before the offence was\ncommitted, the person:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)  terminated his or her involvement; and</p>\n<p>(b)  took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the\noffence.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(5)  A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or\nprocuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has", "metadata": {"content_length": 972, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 101}, "distance": 0.669317364692688, "relevance_score": 0.330682635307312}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>See also S.E. Thorne, &quot;Dr. Bonham's Case&quot; (1938) 54 Law Quarterly Review 543, p. 543:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To students of the origins of American constitutional law and theory no judicial utterance of Sir Edward Coke can surpass in interest and importance his so-called <em>dictum</em> in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Dr. Bonham's case</a>, decided in the Court of Common Pleas in 1610. It is widely regarded as foreshadowing not merely the power which American courts to-day exercise in the disallowance of statutes on the ground of their conflict with the constitution, but also that very test of 'reasonableness' which is the ultimate flowing of that power.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 24, "content_length": 761, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.6693336963653564, "relevance_score": 0.33066630363464355}, {"content": "<p>The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has even said (<em>Pirie v. Skantz</em>, <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2016/2016bcca70/2016bcca70.html#par14\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2016 BCCA 70, para. 14</a>):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... where a through driver ... should have become aware of the left-turning driver\u2019s own disregard of the law in circumstances that afforded him a sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident through the exercise of reasonable care, <strong>the through driver may be found wholly or primarily at fault for the accident</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 7, "content_length": 583, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 17}, "distance": 0.6694732904434204, "relevance_score": 0.3305267095565796}, {"content": "<p>On the other hand, if the utility treated one co-generation plant one way, and another one down the road differently, in the face of substantially similar facts, the court would probably decide which interpretation made the most sense under the circumstances itself, and would impose that interpretation on the utility.</p>\n\n\nTags: germany, legal-terms", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 355, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 69}, "distance": 0.6696466207504272, "relevance_score": 0.33035337924957275}, {"content": "Question Title: Why is drunk driving causing accident punished so much worse than just drunk driving?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>When people drink and drive and then cause an accident especially where if someone dies they get years and years in prison but just the act of drunk driving is punished way more lenient.  Shouldn't the 2, drunk driving and drunk driving then causing accident be similarly punished?  I feel like a lot of times it's luck whether an accident happens.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 473, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.670383632183075, "relevance_score": 0.32961636781692505}, {"content": "Tags: civil-law", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 15, "chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 92}, "distance": 0.6706153154373169, "relevance_score": 0.3293846845626831}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Not copyright law but the jurisdiction might provide for <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">moral rights</a> of artists and authors and such, which among other things might protect the integrity of the work or prevent its destruction.</p>\n<p>One example is the <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 106A</a> (VARA), which provides for the author's right in some circumstances &quot;to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.&quot;</p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Wikipedia article about VARA</a> includes three examples of when artists have benefited from that right, to varying extents.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 917, "original_index": 47, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6710851192474365, "relevance_score": 0.3289148807525635}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Witness intimidation is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1512, which imposes penalties on anyone who:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)(2) uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to ... influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>or</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(b) knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 647, "chunk_index": 4, "original_index": 65}, "distance": 0.6717051267623901, "relevance_score": 0.32829487323760986}, {"content": "Question Title: Can someone be arrested for bus fare evasion?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Recently a woman was filmed being arrested for alleged fare evasion in front of her son in Croydon. She is anonymous but the footage has been all over the news and social media.</p>\n<p>Was there any legal basis for her arrest? If not what would the closest arguable legal basis for it have been?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 380, "original_index": 158, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6717123985290527, "relevance_score": 0.32828760147094727}, {"content": "persons unless kept under further control by the court or other persons or institutions? If so, does the defendant present a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless kept under further control by the court or other persons or institutions, and is it in the best interests of the defendant and others that the defendant be placed in treatment that is less restrictive than detention in a state mental hospital?</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 469, "original_index": 37, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6717633008956909, "relevance_score": 0.3282366991043091}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: Wikipedia</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The effect of section 156 is that anyone adversely affected by a public authority's failings under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/1?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Part 11, Chapter 1</a> cannot sue: any redress is by way of judicial review.</p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/11/1/8\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Note</a> to section 156 offers this example:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A local council fails to give due regard to the requirements of the public sector equality duty when deciding to stop funding a local women\u2019s refuge. An individual would not be able to sue the local council as a result and claim compensation. She would need to consider whether to pursue judicial review proceedings.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 124, "content_length": 941, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6719262599945068, "relevance_score": 0.32807374000549316}, {"content": "Question Title: What is the difference between trespass on a venue and theft of services?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Alice sneaks into a concert venue and enjoys the show.</p>\n<p>Bob sneaks into a spa to enjoy a jacuzzi and steam bath.</p>\n<p>Charlotte sneaks past the usher into a cinema and watches a film.</p>\n<p>Have each of these committed theft of services or merely a civil trespass?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 118, "content_length": 386, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.67262864112854, "relevance_score": 0.32737135887145996}, {"content": "<p>I suppose it could also be used in a manner potentially unfavorable to a defendant (e.g. showing a pattern of past conduct that demonstrates modus operandi in connection with a prosecution for a new crime). I don't think it could be used as grounds to deny an occupational or business license for bad character.</p>\n<p>Still, without more clear context it is harder to know what you are really looking for in this regard and I'm not confident that my examples address that.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Does the defendant lose their right to refuse to testify in the new\ncase?</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 588, "original_index": 276, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6727899312973022, "relevance_score": 0.32721006870269775}, {"content": "<p>After the trial had happened, the bank still could not take the money right away. Maybe Bob would offer some other assets worth $50,000 to pay the bank.</p>\n<p>After it had become evident that Bob was unwilling or unable to comply with the payments, then the bank could ask the court to seize Bob's assets. The court would decide which assets could be seized, would order to have them seized, and then would provide them to the bank.</p>\n<p>That does not mean that Bob would be free to use his $100,000 during this time. Before the trial is over, the bank could request the judge to freeze Bob's account, as a way of ensuring that he does not withdraw the money from it. The judge would evaluate the likelihood of Bob losing the trial and refusing to honour it (and whatever Bob's lawyer's objections to this are) and decide on the issue. But that would only affect Bob's ability to use the money, not his ownership.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 923, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 20, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.6728816032409668, "relevance_score": 0.3271183967590332}, {"content": "<p>The short answer is yes, the privilege applies.</p>\n<p>The case of <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/us-v-tyler-12\" rel=\"noreferrer\">US v. Tyler, 745 F. Supp. 423 (W.D. Mich. 1990)</a> matches your hypothetical almost exactly.  The defendant, James Tyler, shared a prison cell with Melvin Deutsch, who said that he was a lawyer, had what appeared to be a law school diploma on the wall of his cell, and was addressed as &quot;counselor&quot; by other inmates; but in fact was not a lawyer.  Nevertheless, correspondence between Tyler and Deutsch regarding Tyler's legal issues was held to be privileged and inadmissible.</p>\n<p>Tyler was held to have had a reasonable belief that Deutsch was a lawyer, despite that Deutsch had never been licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction, and that the law school diploma was (presumably) fake.  Tyler evidently didn't check on either of those things, and the court did not seem to think that he reasonably should have.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 266, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 971, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6735191345214844, "relevance_score": 0.3264808654785156}, {"content": "Tags: fraud, car-insurance", "metadata": {"content_length": 26, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 247, "chunk_index": 11, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6736201047897339, "relevance_score": 0.3263798952102661}, {"content": "Question Title: What is the consequence of failing to allow the water company to install a meter?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Under the water industry act 1991 water providers must have a plan to manage the demand for water in certain areas. If they choose to install compulsory water meters but aren\u2019t allowed to because a resident fails to contact them, what is the consequence for the resident?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 392, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 283, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6738536357879639, "relevance_score": 0.32614636421203613}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<p>There are likely several offences under the <em>Inclosed Lands Protection Act</em> 1901.</p>\n<p>Under <a href=\"http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s4.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s4</a> it is unlawful to enter into inclosed lands (which includes all buildings) without the consent of the owner or controller. The balloon releasers did not have explicit permission and entering with the intent to disrupt means they cannot rely upon implied permission.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 746, "original_index": 120, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6738899946212769, "relevance_score": 0.32611000537872314}, {"content": "<p>Now, in the eyes of a US court, am I a murderer? </p>\n\n<p>Furthermore, if the answer is that I would be considered a murder in the eye of the law, what if we change one detail of the premise: Rather than knowing I have a 99.9% chance of saving the person's life while avoiding any physical or mental damage, that number becomes 90%. Or 80%. Is there any language within the law that specifically defines a threshold beyond which it's reasonable to fear for my health and allow the person to die in order to protect my health? </p>\n\n<p>I realize the answer could vary from state to state, and if you need to use an example state, let's randomly say I'm in California. </p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>You have no reponsibility to save someone (unless you put them in that position / were responsible for his safety, this is called owing a &quot;duty of care&quot;, e.g doctor to patient, road user to road user etc)</p>\n<p>Legally you are not a murderer. But morally, your actions are reprehensible.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 102, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 992}, "distance": 0.6748661994934082, "relevance_score": 0.3251338005065918}, {"content": "<p>Another component of jurisdiction called &quot;subject-matter&quot; jurisdiction, which can't be waived, involves whether a particular court can handle a particular kind of case without regard to whether the case was filed in the right state and isn't an issue in this question. Subject-matter jurisdiction can't be waived involves questions like whether a limited jurisdiction court takes on a case in excess of the dollar amount it is allowed to consider, or grants a kind of judgment it doesn't have the authority to grant, or grants relief in a case brought by someone who hasn't suffered any legal injury which is called lacking &quot;standing&quot; to sue.</p>\n<p>Some waivers of personal jurisdiction defenses are intentional litigation strategy decisions and others are a result of simple carelessness or malpractice by the lawyer involved.</p>\n<p><strong>Does a small claims court in a state that does have jurisdiction have jurisdiction over the case?</strong></p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 275, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 977, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12}, "distance": 0.6750120520591736, "relevance_score": 0.3249879479408264}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>No person may be held liable in law for having imparted or received\ninformation, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in\nrelation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the\nseeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's\nfreedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by\nlaw.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(etc.), and likewise criminalizes hate speech.</p>\n<p>Libel, fraud and death threats are communicative acts that are universally banned, and child pornography is almost universally illegal, so no country is anarchic in terms of expression. Every nation has limits on expression, which are generally taken to be implicitly justified exceptions to existing guarantees of freedom of expression. In some countries, the exceptions are named in detail in the constitution, in some (North Korea, Eritrea) the constitution is simply ignored.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 184, "chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 911, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6756367683410645, "relevance_score": 0.32436323165893555}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>In the case of Massachusetts (Mass.) the definition of &quot;child&quot; means different things depending on the laws in question.   Generally, a &quot;child&quot; for the purposes of the legal age of criminal prosecution is defined as any child younger than 12 years old at the time of the crime (Mass. has the highest age of criminal prosecution in the United States.)  Federally, this age is any child younger than 11 years of age.</p>\n<p>In terms of Age of Consent (the legal age in which a person may give consent to a sexual relationship) is 16 years and over.  Federally, this is 18 years or older.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 622, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 211}, "distance": 0.6757116317749023, "relevance_score": 0.32428836822509766}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Fraud and Perjury</strong></p>\n<p>While, again, the First Amendment makes no categorical exception for\nfalse or misleading speech, certain types of fraudulent statements\nfall outside its protection. The government generally can impose\nliability for false advertising or on speakers who knowingly make\nfactual misrepresentations to obtain money or some other material\nbenefit (such as employment). Prohibitions on perjury \u2014 knowingly\ngiving false testimony under oath \u2014 also are constitutional.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This statute requires proof of intentional fraud, and not just a good faith difference of opinion sincerely held by the defendant.</p>\n<p>Probably the most on point precedent upholding the constitutionality of this statute in an analogous context is <em>United States v. Rafoi</em>, 60 F.4th 982 (5th Cir. 2023).</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 83, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 855, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6757711172103882, "relevance_score": 0.3242288827896118}, {"content": "Answer 7: <p>Consider these two scenarios:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Alice has never driven whilst drunk before, but this one time she's forgotten that she came to the dinner party by car and drinks some wine. Realising her mistake, she drives home exceedingly careful and slow, which raises the suspicion of a policeman who tests her and finds the alcohol level too high.</li>\n<li>Bob routinely drives slightly drunk, but has been confident and lucky enough never to have been caught. This time though, his intoxication causes him to not notice a pedestrian who has tripped while crossing the road, and he runs her over.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If both were punished the same way, there wouldn't really be an incentive (besides altruism) to act like Alice, which clearly is the less inappropriate thing to do. She didn't act exactly <em>right</em> either, but she certainly acted in a way that posed less danger to society.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 905, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 15}, "distance": 0.6760181188583374, "relevance_score": 0.3239818811416626}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>In any jurisdiction, could anyone but Joanne, in light of the\naforementioned circumstances, face liability for Jordan's death?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Maybe the bullies could be prosecuted for homicide or some lesser charge like harassment intended to provoke a suicide or something like that. More facts would have to be developed on that point.</p>\n<p>Maybe teachers have civil liability for negligence, but not criminal liability for not intervening since they didn't intend to cause or encourage the suicide.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 529, "original_index": 31, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.67615807056427, "relevance_score": 0.32384192943573}, {"content": "Question Title: Can somebody be charged for having another person physically assault someone for them?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>For example, if a friend asked her father to physically assault me, and her father did it, can the friend who asked her father to assault me also be charged with assault?</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <p>Yes.</p>\n<p>The charge in that case is solicitation of assault. Usually, solicitation of a crime carries the same punishment as the underlying crime.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, if a daughter tells her father what you did to her and he unilaterally decides to assault you, out of defense of his family's honor and outrage, the daughter has not committed a crime.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 101, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 676, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.676293671131134, "relevance_score": 0.32370632886886597}, {"content": "<p>Many states impose restrictions on where sex offenders can reside that could be implicated in this case.</p>\n<p>A few states also have a criminal sanction of &quot;exile&quot; on the books that prohibits certain people from being in certain jurisdictions following their conviction.</p>\n<p><strong>Gray Area Reasons</strong></p>\n<p>It is also entirely possible that the police are asserting rights to do things that they don't actually have the right to do. And, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., it is not categorically unconstitutional for law enforcement officers to lie to members of the public about their authority or other matters, in order to achieve a law enforcement purpose, even if they would be violating the law if they followed through on their lies about what they are permitted to do.</p>\n<p><strong>Improper Reasons</strong></p>\n<p>There could also be clearly improper reasons for this conduct. For example:</p>\n<ul>", "metadata": {"content_length": 938, "original_index": 218, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6764494180679321, "relevance_score": 0.32355058193206787}, {"content": "Tags: criminal-law, england-and-wales, legal-terms, court, legal-history", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 72, "original_index": 231, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6765415668487549, "relevance_score": 0.3234584331512451}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to set everyday procedural rules in state court, although it can mandate processes that flow from the constitution. In criminal cases, this allows it to regulate courtroom conduct that is prejudicial to defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has prohibited keeping criminal defendants facing trial in a cage in the courtroom as is common in many jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.</p>\n<p>The Rittenhouse case took place in state court, over which the U.S. Supreme Court has limited authority in such matters.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has broad authority to establish court rules in the federal courts and could adopt rules in those courts if it deemed fit, and if its proposed rules were not legislatively vetoed by Congress.</p>\n\n\nTags: jurisdiction, us-supreme-court", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 861, "original_index": 121, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6766248941421509, "relevance_score": 0.3233751058578491}, {"content": "<p>A claim for damages would need to be pursued as part of the overall case but the deadline for raising them is a procedural matter for the court or tribunal. Failing to raise them as an issue in pre-litigation correspondence would not be a bar to raising them in a claim or counter-claim.</p>\n<p>However, failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity denies the offending party the opportunity to mitigate the damage and, if they can show that there were actions they could have reasonably taken to mitigate but couldn\u2019t because they weren\u2019t informed, then that may reduce or eliminate the damages payable.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 253, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 616}, "distance": 0.6766499280929565, "relevance_score": 0.32335007190704346}, {"content": "Question Title: If a parent withdraws a minor student from school, or prevents them from attending, is that a criminal violation of a mandatory attendance law?", "metadata": {"content_length": 159, "original_index": 39, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6768256425857544, "relevance_score": 0.3231743574142456}, {"content": "<h2>Confession is unbounded in terms of the scope of the sins that can be confessed and absolved</h2>\n<p>Here is an example statement about confession from the document cited below:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Provided always, That if any Man confess his secret and hidden Sins to the Minister for the unburdening of his Conscience, and to receive spiritual Consolation and Ease of Mind from him: We do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him [...], that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any Person whatsoever, any Crime or Offence so committed to his Trust and Secrecy (except they be such Crimes as by the Laws of this Realm, his own Life may be called into question for concealing the same)25 under pain of Irregularity...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h2>European law and practice varies</h2>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 852, "chunk_index": 21, "original_index": 291}, "distance": 0.677017092704773, "relevance_score": 0.32298290729522705}, {"content": "<p>It may also be helpful for you to be aware of the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations\" rel=\"noreferrer\">limitation period</a> in your jurisdiction for defamation. In England and Wales it is much shorter than for most other causes of action (which is most commonly 6 years). While not helpful if the claimant issues a claim in time, it can relieve the pressure somewhat once the period has expired.</p>\n<p>A claim must be brought within 1 year of the date on which the defamation ocurred, pursuant to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/4A\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980</a>. This is subject to the court's discretion to permit defamation cases to proceed outside the limitation period pursuant to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/32A\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 32A</a>.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 881, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 252}, "distance": 0.6777251958847046, "relevance_score": 0.3222748041152954}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Under those circumstances, the woman would be guilty. Although mistake of fact is a defense for most crimes, this is actually a mistake of <em>law</em>, which is not a defense.</p>\n<p>There was a somewhat ridiculed <a href=\"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C093542S.PDF\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case</a> in which a court decided that a bee was legally a fish for the purposes of a particular law. But the court wasn't wrong; the law literally defined invertebrates as fish. Honestly believing that bees are not fish would not save you if you violated such a law in regards to a bee. It doesn't even matter that you are <em>correct</em> that a bee is not really a fish; you're still guilty. The law is allowed to have ridiculous definitions, and you still have to abide by those definitions. The definition (from that case) in question reads:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201c \u2018[f]ish\u2019 means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate,", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 234, "content_length": 955, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6778813600540161, "relevance_score": 0.3221186399459839}, {"content": "<p><em>Specific Jurisdiction Where The Claim Arises</em></p>\n<p>A company can also always be sued in the state where all of the important events that provide a basis for the lawsuit took place. This concept is called &quot;specific jurisdiction&quot; which is also known as &quot;long arm jurisdiction&quot;. This is usually the state where it is easiest to prove the case because usually witnesses and evidence are more available in this state.</p>\n<p><em>Usually A State Doesn't Have Jurisdiction Because The Plaintiff Resides There</em></p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 543, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 275, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6779139637947083, "relevance_score": 0.32208603620529175}, {"content": "<p>Noye was later jailed for an unconnected knife murder, if that bears on the likely &quot;accuracy&quot; of the jury's verdict on him in 1985.</p>\n<p>But many serious convictions dating from the 1970s and 80s were later reversed following eventual acceptance amongst the judiciary that the police had often been liars, and jury cases like that of Noye essentially helped to shock the system non-destructively, and served to stem the further accumulation of miscarriages generally.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 229, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 486, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12}, "distance": 0.6779857873916626, "relevance_score": 0.3220142126083374}, {"content": "Question Title: If for some reason the Canadian Parliament had the idea to impeach and convict someone, what would be the legal implications of that?", "metadata": {"original_index": 78, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 149}, "distance": 0.6782562732696533, "relevance_score": 0.3217437267303467}, {"content": "Question Title: When does s3(1) of the Defamation Act *not* apply in malicious falesehood cases?", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 96, "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 54, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6783169507980347, "relevance_score": 0.32168304920196533}, {"content": "<p>In any case, even if the statements can be proved true, or the poster has another clear defense to an accusation of defamation, defending a suit can be costly and troublesome.</p>\n<p>In some jurisdictions there are so-called &quot;anti-SLAPP&quot; laws. These can be invoked when a defamation suit is used to unduly burden speech that is of public value, sch a news reporting  or comments on current public issues. (SLAPP stands for &quot;strategic lawsuit against public participation&quot;.) Such laws can be used to have an improper suit dismissed at an early stage, before  undue burdens are imposed. Exactly how and when such laws may be invoked varies depending on the jurisdiction, and they do not exist at all in some jurisdictions. One would be wise to consult a lawyer knowledgeable in defamation law to see if a anti-SLAPP law, or some other tactic, could avoid a burdensome suit.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 252, "content_length": 898, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6787424087524414, "relevance_score": 0.3212575912475586}, {"content": "<p><em>Municipal Ordinance Violations</em></p>\n<p>Many valid reasons involve municipal ordinances, almost all of which can be punished by arrest and incarceration just like a misdemeanor criminal offense, even when the ordinance does not describe conduct that would usually be considered to be criminal in nature.</p>\n<p>For example, municipal codes usually authorize law enforcement to arrest someone for a zoning violation, even though it would be very unusual to arrest someone for violating a zoning law.</p>\n<p>There are often municipal ordinances which limit how many house guests you can have at any one time in a single family house or apartment, such as fire codes and laws designed to prevent loitering and gang activity, and there are often rules that prohibit certain kinds of activities like loud and disorderly parties (especially where alcohol is served or available). But, these ordinances almost never prohibit all house guests.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 949, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 218, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6787899136543274, "relevance_score": 0.3212100863456726}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Regardless of anything else, it is certainly possible for a city who feels a particular party might have the basis for a lawsuit against them, to reach out to that party <em>prior to lawsuit</em> and &quot;settle&quot; the matter.</p>\n<p>While this might seem like a giveaway, it's not quite.  It is a fair exchange of a <em>known, fixed, small</em> amount of money, <strong>plus certainty</strong>, in exchange for <strong>uncertainty</strong> and a costly litigation involving a much larger amount of money.</p>\n<p>The <strong>plaintiff is now barred from suing on that matter</strong>, so the city enjoys the certainty that no million dollar judgment is hanging over their head. That reduces their insurance premiums.</p>\n<p>I cannot speculate about which developments in facts or law would lead Evanston to think they might have such legal exposure.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, fourteenth-amendment, civil-right-act", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 182, "content_length": 931, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.6795411109924316, "relevance_score": 0.32045888900756836}, {"content": "<p>The business can set a 'dress code' and refuse entry to people who are not dressed to code.</p>\n<p>If a rule says &quot;no topless people&quot; that's OK. If a rule says &quot;men must not be topless&quot; then on the face of it that's unlawful discrimination. If a rule requires smart footwear that's OK. If a rule says &quot;women must wear high heels&quot; then  on the face of it that's unlawful discrimination.</p>\n<p>Generally the business can refuse to serve a person and require the person to leave the premises. If the person refuses to leave then they commit the civil tort of trespass. If the person then obstructs the lawful activity of the business or damages its property then they commit the criminal offence of aggravated trespass.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 754, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 206}, "distance": 0.679771363735199, "relevance_score": 0.320228636264801}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p><strong>The decision to charge can only be reviewed for <em>abuse of process</em></strong> which asks (<em>Nixon</em>, para. 40):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>whether \u201ccompelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community\u2019s sense of fair play and decency\u201d, or where the proceedings are \u201coppressive or vexatious\u201d</p>\n</blockquote>\n<h3>Crown prosecution offices <em>do</em> consider the likelihood of conviction when deciding whether to charge</h3>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 520, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11, "original_index": 38}, "distance": 0.6798228621482849, "relevance_score": 0.3201771378517151}, {"content": "<p>In <a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/stepek-v-doe\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Stepek v. Doe</a>, the court similarly affirmed that a church enjoys a privilege against charges of defamation, when the plaintiff continues to operate within the church, not having left the church.</p>\n<p>So it can &quot;work&quot;, to some extent. The person can always withdraw consent; the person has no legal recourse in case consent has not been withdrawn. The article is correct as far as it goes, which is not far enough: it errs in not stating what the legal consequences of of the transgressor leaving the church are.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 612, "original_index": 224, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6801225543022156, "relevance_score": 0.3198774456977844}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Here show that charges include abandoning/concealing the corpse as well as issues around reporting the death</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Jessica Burgess pleaded guilty earlier this month to providing an illegal abortion, false reporting and tampering with human skeletal remains. In exchange for her plea, charges of concealing the death of another person and abortion by someone other than a licensed physician were dismissed. She faces sentencing on Sept. 22.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This shows charges around tampering with human remains.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 107, "chunk_index": 11, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 551, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6801838874816895, "relevance_score": 0.31981611251831055}, {"content": "<p>In essence, a jury decides that a law should not be legal in the situation, and as such the charge is unwarranted.</p>\n\n<p>One of the first cases was in the trial of John Peter Zenger, in 1735, where a law against libels was used against him, and subsequently nullified by a jury. It was subsequently used against the famous Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as The Fugitive Slave Laws.</p>\n\n<p>Zenger was the first case in America; <a href=\"http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/JuryNullification.html\">in 1670</a>, it was used in the case of William Penn and William Mead, who were acquitted of \"illegal assembly\" as Quakers. In an interesting twist, the jurors were imprisoned, as jury nullification was not explicitly legal, but they were later released.</p>\n\n<p>Interestingly enough, according to <em><a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0\">The New York Times</a></em></p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 89, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 915, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6805639266967773, "relevance_score": 0.31943607330322266}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p><strong>Yes the woman is guilty of murder</strong> (under the law OP described)</p>\n<p>The issue of common law mens rea (the guilty conscience) is moot as it is no longer a component of the crime, see <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea\" rel=\"noreferrer\">here</a>.</p>\n<p>Almost all jurisdictions today have codified crimes so the common law mens rea is not relevant, for example, in Texas a person commits murder if they &quot;intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual&quot;; feeling guilty about it or knowing it was wrong is not an issue.</p>\n<p>In the facts you describe the person &quot;intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual&quot;; the fact that she did not consider the victim to be a person is immaterial. As described, she would have a hard time with an insanity plea in the same way that a white supremacist murderer would for classifying members of other races as &quot;non-persons&quot;.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 234, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 969, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.6807042360305786, "relevance_score": 0.3192957639694214}, {"content": "Question Title: Does a person on probation have to legally identify themselves to police officers without reasonable articulable suspicion of a criminal offense\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Is there a New Hampshire RSA regarding persons on probation having to by law identify themselves as being on probation and provide their name and identification to an officer, when stopped even if it\u2019s only for civil infraction</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 411, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 263, "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6807138323783875, "relevance_score": 0.31928616762161255}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Drunk driving remains, per se, &quot;victimless&quot; - a breach of regulations - until someone actually becomes a victim. That puts less emphasis on the punitive role of the justice system and more on deterrence and rehabilitation.</p>\n<p>The standards for charging someone with DUI are much lower than with vehicular homicide. DUI is a strict liability offense, requiring no intent, no mens rea. In about half the states it's even <a href=\"https://stpetelawgroup.com/can-i-get-a-dui-if-im-sleeping-in-my-car-in-fl/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">possible</a> to get a DUI conviction for sleeping in the back seat of a car. In no state is it possible to kill anyone (other than yourself) solely by sleeping under the influence.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 732, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6807886362075806, "relevance_score": 0.31921136379241943}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>As @James K indicated in a comment:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Private law\u00a0involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts and\u00a0torts,\u00a0(as it is called in the\u00a0common law), and the\u00a0law of obligations\u00a0(as it is called in\u00a0civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from\u00a0public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and\u00a0artificial persons\u00a0(i.e., organizations) and the\u00a0state, including regulatory statutes,\u00a0penal law\u00a0and other law that affects the\u00a0public order. <strong>In general terms, private law involves interactions between private individuals</strong>, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: Wikipedia</a></p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 124, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 823, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6808696985244751, "relevance_score": 0.3191303014755249}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>UK-based answer:</p>\n\n<p>With regards to rights above land, we know from <em>Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd</em> [1978] QB 479 that a person owns: \"the airspace above his land to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it\"</p>\n\n<p>Though this wouldn't allow you to sue someone for flying a helicopter or airplane above your land, I would believe that drones would count as flying low enough as to be potentially infringing on your right. </p>\n\n<p>That said, this only really means that if someone flies their drown over your land, low enough to annoy you, you could ask them to cease and desist. I don't think you would be justified in installing a \"drone-jammer\" or any system which injects commands to a drone to render it inoperable or to gain control over it.</p>\n\n<p>In the same way that if there is an intruder to your property, you can't without warning just physically shove them off of your property.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12, "original_index": 34, "content_length": 992, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6809338331222534, "relevance_score": 0.3190661668777466}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Here's the relevant statute for Virginia, <a href=\"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-920/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">46.2-920</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A. The driver of any emergency vehicle, when such vehicle is being used in the performance of public services, and when such vehicle is operated under emergency conditions, may, without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>Disregard speed limits, while having due regard for safety of persons and property;</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>B. The exemptions granted to emergency vehicles by subsection A in subdivisions A1, A3, A4, A5, and A6 shall apply only when the operator of such vehicle displays a flashing, blinking, or alternating emergency light or lights as provided in \u00a7\u00a7 46.2-1022 and 46.2-1023 and sounds a siren, exhaust whistle, or air horn designed to give automatically intermittent signals, as may be reasonably necessary.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 987, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 149, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6816160678863525, "relevance_score": 0.31838393211364746}, {"content": "Tags: licensing, medical", "metadata": {"original_index": 214, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 24, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.6817713975906372, "relevance_score": 0.3182286024093628}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>You can get arrested for theft and/or fraud. This is not some new way to steal items; changing price tags started approximately the day after price tags were invented. Some state laws handle it explicitly, some implicitly; for instance, Maryland defines &quot;deception&quot; in its <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-7/subtitle-1/7-101/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">theft statute</a> to include &quot;(vi) remove or alter a label or price tag;&quot; theft is <a href=\"http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-7/subtitle-1/7-104/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">committed</a> if, among other possibilities,</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(b)  Unauthorized control over property - By deception.- A person may not obtain control over property by willfully or knowingly using deception, if the person:</p>\n<p>(1) intends to deprive the owner of the property;</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 58, "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 905, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6818344593048096, "relevance_score": 0.31816554069519043}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Among other sources he cites Joseph Chitty's <em>A practical treatise on the criminal law</em>, which in an early American edition (Philadelphia: Isaac Riley, 1819) confirms <a href=\"https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.37603137&amp;seq=217\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">at 240</a> that these words concerning the Devil &quot;though usual, are not necessary to be inserted&quot;, elaborating that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>where the common law, or a statute, forbids the doing of a thing, the doing it wilfully is indictable, though without any corrupt motive, and consequently it need not in any case be averred.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 25, "content_length": 645, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6820077896118164, "relevance_score": 0.3179922103881836}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>If there has been no trial establishing Bob's guilt, the bank does not know that it was Bob who did rob the bank.</p>\n<p>Even if the bank has Bob on the security video feed, claiming that, &quot;As my name is Bob, I will shoot anyone who does not follow my instructions&quot;, and Bob left behind his driver's licence at the heist, the bank does not <em>know</em> that it was Bob.</p>\n<p>The bank could sue Bob in a civil action in order to get the money back. It would have to follow some procedures to notify Bob of the lawsuit and, if he did not appear, it would win by default. If Bob were to appear, he could make his case about why the bank should not be entitled to that money (&quot;It was not me&quot; / &quot;I only took $1,000&quot; / whatever).</p>\n<p>After the trial had happened, the bank still could not take the money right away. Maybe Bob would offer some other assets worth $50,000 to pay the bank.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 933, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 20, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6820595860481262, "relevance_score": 0.3179404139518738}, {"content": "States v. Holmes</em>, 26 F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383).  The American <em>Model Penal Code</em> proposes that the defence of necessity would be available for homicide:  American Law Institute, <em>Model Penal Code and Commentaries</em> (1985), Part I, vol. 2,  at \u00a7 3.02, pp. 14-15; see also W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr., <em>Substantive Criminal Law</em> (1986), vol. 1, at p. 634.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 123, "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 407}, "distance": 0.6821113228797913, "relevance_score": 0.31788867712020874}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The law varies greatly among U.S. states, most of which treat this as a common law tort action rather than having a statute on point.</p>\n<p>But, the question tags California, and under California law, the relevant statute, which is called the &quot;Right of Publicity Law&quot; is <a href=\"https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344.html?/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">California Civil Code \u00a7 3344</a> (rights of publicity after you are dead are governed by parallel California Civil Code \u00a7 3344.1).</p>\n<p>This statute, under the relevant circumstances, gives the person whose photos were used commercially without their consent the right to economic damages (but not less than statutory damages of $750), disgorgement of profits from the commercial use of the image, attorney fees, and sometimes punitive damages. In the case in the question, the economic damages are unlikely to exceed the $750 amount unless the employer is a massive chain of restaurants.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 150, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 986}, "distance": 0.6823631525039673, "relevance_score": 0.3176368474960327}, {"content": "<p>Also, neither of the decisions disputes that police may, under the police power exception, destroy property in connection with efforts to apprehend a criminal or to prevent a crime, without seeking court approval in the usual situation where there are exigent circumstances that can't wait for the slow process of conducting a court hearing on the question. The question, instead, is whether an innocent property owner has a right to bring an &quot;<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/inverse_condemnation\" rel=\"noreferrer\">inverse condemnation</a>&quot; lawsuit to remedy the damage that the innocent property owner has experienced.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 645, "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 110, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6823943853378296, "relevance_score": 0.3176056146621704}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p><strong>United Kingdom</strong></p>\n<p>In UK there are many areas where 'owned' grazing animals roam freely: the New Forest, moorland, mountain roads etc. If you hit one, it's not the fault of the person who owns it, although someone <em>with</em> the animal(s) must take proper control of them. Compare this with hitting a wild creature such as a deer - who are you going to sue?</p>\n<p>Section 170 of the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Road Traffic Act 1988</a> requires that if the animal is a <strong>horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog</strong> the driver must stop and provide their identity, details of insurance, etc. to any involved party.</p>\n<p>If you can't do that, you must report the accident at a police station.</p>\n<p>For that list of animals, the requirements are the same as causing damage to a person, to another vehicle or to property.</p>\n\n\nTags: india, traffic, animals, safety", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 980, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 236, "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.6824013590812683, "relevance_score": 0.3175986409187317}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>(1) A person (A) [<em>employer</em>] discriminates against another (B) [<em>Bob</em>] if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There is no requirement for victims to have the relevant protected characteristic to be unlawfully discriminated against - it's the motivation behind the discrimination that makes it unlawful.  The supporting <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/2/1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Notes</a> to section 13 states that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>This\u00a0definition is broad enough to cover cases where the less favourable treatment is because .... the victim is wrongly thought to have [a protected characteristic].</p>\n<p>...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The Notes then go on to offer an example of a similar scenario to the OP:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 282, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 912, "chunk_index": 7}, "distance": 0.6824599504470825, "relevance_score": 0.3175400495529175}, {"content": "Question Title: Murder due to temporary insanity\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Due to an unfortunate event outside of his control, &quot;Juan&quot; temporarily goes insane. Due to his insanity, he commits an extremely heinous crime (say, for example, a school shooting.) Still a raving lunatic, he surrenders to the police.</p>\n<p>While awaiting trial, Juan receives medical treatment that causes him to stop being insane.</p>\n<p>Legally speaking, what happens? From what I understand, an insanity plea results in being committed to a mental institution indefinitely. However, Juan is no longer insane and doesn't require further treatment.</p>\n<p>N.B. This question was originally worded quite differently. My revision was primarily to remove unnecessary details; the core of the question remains the same.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 37, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 800, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6824719905853271, "relevance_score": 0.31752800941467285}, {"content": "is subject to constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, the conscious\nexercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal\nconstitutional violation so long as the selection was [not]\ndeliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard . . . . [t]here is a\npresumption that prosecution for violation of the criminal law is in\ngood faith.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>United States v. Amon</em>, 669 F.2d 1351, 1355-56 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 (1982) (citations and some punctuation marks omitted).</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a\ndefendant bears the heavy burden of establishing, at least prima\nfacie, (1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally\nbeen proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the\nbasis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for\nprosecution, and (2) that the government\u2019s discriminatory selection of", "metadata": {"original_index": 239, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 946}, "distance": 0.6824828386306763, "relevance_score": 0.31751716136932373}, {"content": "<p>Now I'd like to know what this judge will say. Did the duck harass the man, coming every day? Did the man commit a crime, or is he OK this time? \ud83c\udfb6</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 297, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 153, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6826087236404419, "relevance_score": 0.3173912763595581}, {"content": "Tags: contract-law, legal-terms, consideration", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 46, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 1, "chunk_index": 7}, "distance": 0.6827956438064575, "relevance_score": 0.3172043561935425}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>An 18-year-old northeastern Nebraska woman was sentenced Thursday to 90 days in jail and two years of probation for burning and burying a fetus she aborted with her mother\u2019s help in a case watched by advocates as a slew of states move to restrict abortion access.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Here the charges include damage to the corpse from burying it as well as burying it.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Celeste Burgess, of Norfolk, was sentenced in Madison County after pleading guilty earlier this year to concealing or abandoning a dead body. Two other misdemeanor charges of false reporting and concealing the death of another person were dropped, in an agreement with prosecutors.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Here show that charges include abandoning/concealing the corpse as well as issues around reporting the death</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 10, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 834, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107}, "distance": 0.6828125715255737, "relevance_score": 0.31718742847442627}, {"content": "Answer 3: <h2><a href=\"/questions/tagged/sweden\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;sweden&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;sweden&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-sweden-tooltip-container\">sweden</a> An Offence against the peace of the grave</h2>\n<p>Gravfridsbrott<br />\n<em>Brottsbalken 16 kap. 10 \u00a7</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A person who, without authorisation, moves, damages or treats with disrespect the corpse or ashes of a deceased person is guilty of an offence against the peace of the grave and is sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for at most two\nyears.</p>\n<p>If the offence is gross, the person is guilty of a gross offence\nagainst the peace of the grave and is sentenced to imprisonment\nfor at least six months and at most four years.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This law is used in Sweden for things like moving or trying to destroying the body of a murder victim.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 910, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107, "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6829208135604858, "relevance_score": 0.31707918643951416}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p><strong>BURGLARY</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 9(1)(a)</a> Theft Act 1968 - hinges on the definition of &quot;criminal damage&quot; (very tenuous IMO)</p>\n</li>\n<li><p><strong>TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITE</strong> contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/4/crossheading/trespass-on-designated-site?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 128</a> Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - fails to meet the definitions of &quot;protected or designated site&quot;</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<hr />\n<p><sup>1</sup><sub>There is nothing on open source nor via mainstream media (that I can find) to say whether a complaint has been made to the police or a criminal investigation is underway so this may all be moot.</sub></p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 870, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 120}, "distance": 0.6831996440887451, "relevance_score": 0.3168003559112549}, {"content": "Question Title: Which law rules polygraphs inadmissible in UK?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Where does it say that polygraph tests (lie detector tests) are inadmissible under law in England and Wales?</p>\n<p>I am mostly interested in their usage being disallowed for criminal (both Magistrates' Court and Crown Court) and civil matters. However, if they were allowed elsewhere, such as for employment tribunals, that would be useful knowledge.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 437, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 76}, "distance": 0.6833833456039429, "relevance_score": 0.31661665439605713}, {"content": "imprisonment, and shall, subject to bed availability, the prisoner's\nsecurity designation, the prisoner's programmatic needs, the\nprisoner's mental and medical health needs, any request made by the\nprisoner related to faith- based needs, recommendations of the\nsentencing court, and other security concerns of the Bureau of\nPrisons, place the prisoner in a facility as close as practicable to\nthe prisoner's primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a\nfacility within 500 driving miles of that residence.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It is quite an involved process and set of rules. And, there is necessarily flexibility in the system to reflect the availability of prison space at the time of assignment.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 108, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 713, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6837747097015381, "relevance_score": 0.3162252902984619}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Disposal of premises is explained by the interpretation of Part 4 at <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/38?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 38</a> which includes:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(3) A reference to disposing of premises includes, in the case of premises subject to a tenancy, a reference to\u2014</p>\n<p>(a)assigning the premises,</p>\n<p>(b)sub-letting them, or</p>\n<p>(c)parting with possession of them.</p>\n<p>(4) A reference to disposing of premises also includes a reference to granting a right to occupy them</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The supporting <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/4/7\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Explanatory Notes</a> include this:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>This section explains what is meant by terms used in this Part. In particular it sets out the kinds of property transactions meant by \u201cdisposing of premises\u201d in the case of premises which are subject to a tenancy...</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 997, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 144, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6838229298591614, "relevance_score": 0.3161770701408386}, {"content": "might be acceptable in the interrogation of an average suspect may\nstill cast doubt as to the reliability of admissions made by a\nparticularly vulnerable or inexperienced suspect, such as a child. 191\nSection 76 permits judges to exercise considerable discretion in\nexcluding confessions on the basis of reliability. 192 Section 78 further\ndevelops the courts' power to bar confessions by allowing judges to exercise discretion in excluding evidence that would otherwise be\nadmissible on the basis that it would be unfair to offer the evidence as\nproof in a criminal trial.193 In English courts, the function of the\njudge is to protect the fairness of the proceedings. 194 Because each\ncase will turn on its relevant facts, the government has been\nreluctant to fetter individual judges' discretion by drawing bright line\nrestrictions.195<br />\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0 Courts in England routinely exclude confession evidence\nobtained unfairly by some deceit or trick played on the suspect. 196", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 66, "content_length": 979, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.6840087175369263, "relevance_score": 0.31599128246307373}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p><strong>Short Answer</strong></p>\n<p>Entrapment is law enforcement tricking someone into committing a crime they were not already willing to do. It has two parts: 1) police inducement and 2) lack of predisposition.</p>\n<p><strong>Long Answer</strong></p>\n<p>There are two key elements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>Government inducement - Police must have persuaded, pressured, or lured the defendant into the crime through more than just providing an opportunity. Repeated requests, appeals to sympathy, or large financial rewards can count as inducement. Simply asking to buy drugs likely does not qualify.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Lack of predisposition - The defendant must not have been willing or planning to commit the crime prior to the police inducement. If the defendant already intended to commit the crime, entrapment likely does not apply.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 860, "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 106}, "distance": 0.6842645406723022, "relevance_score": 0.31573545932769775}, {"content": "Question Title: Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>In the United States, accepting a pardon is an admission to the crime.  In <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Burdick_v._United_States</em></a>, the majority opinion stated that a pardon \"carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.\"  </p>\n\n<p>The United States has <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine\" rel=\"noreferrer\">dual sovereignty</a>.  Each state and the federal government makes and prosecutes its own laws.  A federal pardon does not grant immunity to state laws, and vice versa.  A person pardoned in one jurisdiction can still be prosecuted for the same crime (e.g. tax evasion) in another jurisdiction.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 276, "content_length": 885, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6844620704650879, "relevance_score": 0.3155379295349121}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>It would be an extraordinary circumstance for a defendant to be out on bail or bond without that fact being part of the public record.</p>\n<p>In general, the public has access to court records under both the First Amendment and under the common-law right of access to judicial records, and it is difficult for a party or a court to justify removing that access.</p>\n<p>That right applies to bail records, as well, as we saw in the <a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.22.0.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">George Santos case</a>.</p>\n<p>There, Santos was bailed out by family members, and he sought to have the bail records placed sealed to protect his family from harassment. The court granted that request, but reversed after news organizations objected and demanded access.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 5, "content_length": 844, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.6846389174461365, "relevance_score": 0.3153610825538635}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>It was formerly the style, nor at the present day is it quite abolished, to charge, especially in treason and felony, that the defendant did it &quot;not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil.&quot; Both in reason and by all authority, these words are not necessary. Their original purpose seems to have been to make the accusation correspond in form to the fact; for, as Cotton Mather said, speaking of what he and others of this time believed: &quot;When men do commit a crime for which they are to be indicted, they are usually moved by the instigation of the devil.&quot; Yet even in this view, they could never have been required; because in law, no &quot;instigation&quot; to crime justifies the doer, so that the devil's instigation is wholly <em>immaterial</em>.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 866, "original_index": 25}, "distance": 0.6847835183143616, "relevance_score": 0.3152164816856384}, {"content": "Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>is it possible to receive code that should have been but still is not actually licensed to you under the GPL</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This is definitely possible, but in this scenario your question is moot.</p>\n<p>It doesn't matter to you whether the person who provided the code to you</p>\n<p>(a) agreed to the GPL and then violated its terms (breach of contract)</p>\n<p>or</p>\n<p>(b) made copies without agreeing to the GPL (infringement of copyright).</p>\n<p>In neither case was a license under GPL offered to you.  You cannot enforce the offender to offer you a license, because you are not a party to the contract requiring them to do so.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, copyright, licensing", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 713, "original_index": 270}, "distance": 0.6849523782730103, "relevance_score": 0.31504762172698975}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Is there a case here?  Is there some nuanced issues that could mean that the seller is responsible for the seller to have &quot;stolen&quot; from the buyer?  Is there a civil case to be made that the funds should be returned?  Any jurisdiction would be interesting, as it seems to matter little where these events occur.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 52, "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 341}, "distance": 0.6856451034545898, "relevance_score": 0.31435489654541016}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>So unless B gives their permission, this cannot be disclosed.</p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li>A party's duty for disclosure, under <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Part 31</a> Civil Procedure Rules, begins once proceedings have started by a claim being issued under <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07#7.2\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Rule 7.2(1)</a> <strong>unless</strong> <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#31.16\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Rule 31.16</a> applies as <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/33?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 33</a> Supreme Court Act 1981<sup>1</sup> permits disclosure before proceedings have started.</li>\n</ol>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 856, "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 289}, "distance": 0.6858304738998413, "relevance_score": 0.3141695261001587}, {"content": "sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Whether an internet or VPN provider is liable for its users\u2019 copyright infringement would depend on the specific evidence produced to the court. The court would need to interpret the above principles and consider other relevant case law. Proof of a \u201cdirect financial interest\u201d in the infringement would be relevant, but not necessary or sufficient, to establish liability.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 454, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 13, "original_index": 188}, "distance": 0.686057448387146, "relevance_score": 0.313942551612854}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Translation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The aim of the law is to prevent or eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, gender, religion or belief, disability, <strong>age</strong> or sexual identity.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The law is obviously more complex than that introductory sentence, but yes, there are laws to prevent discrimination by age <em>alone</em>. And while there are other protective laws taking priority (no, you cannot let your 5 year old work in a coal mine...), it <em>should</em> hinder employers to discriminate based on a number alone.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 593, "original_index": 30, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8}, "distance": 0.6863110065460205, "relevance_score": 0.3136889934539795}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I'm asking specifically about the validity of a conviction based on an allegation of &quot;failure to appear&quot; for a traffic camera violation.</p>\n<p>Let's say that &quot;Lizzie&quot; receives a citation via USPS First Class mail for a traffic camera infraction.  She responds in a timely manner by signing and submitting the &quot;certificate of innocence&quot; that was included with the citation.  The form is returned via USPS First Class mail, the same method used by the court, within the 30 days required by the statute.</p>\n<p>\u00a7 <a href=\"https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_810.436\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>ORS 810.436</em></a> (7)(a) states:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 698, "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 165, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6865984201431274, "relevance_score": 0.31340157985687256}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><strong>The Threshold Test</strong></a></p>\n<p>This test is applied when an immediate charging decision is required, but the Full Code Test cannot be satisfied as there are outstanding enquiries or evidence to be collected.</p>\n<p>There are five conditions to satisfy for this test to be applied:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person to be charged has committed the offence</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Further evidence can be obtained to provide a realistic prospect of conviction</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The seriousness or the circumstances of the case justifies the making of an immediate charging decision</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>There are continuing substantial grounds to object to bail in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 and in all the circumstances of the case it is proper to do so</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>It is in the public interest to charge the suspect</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<hr />", "metadata": {"content_length": 989, "chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6866276264190674, "relevance_score": 0.3133723735809326}, {"content": "<p>New is not necessarily better, and frankly, new statutes are the least informative, because legislatures often say things that are less than clear on the face of it, and will need to await either administrative creation of a regulation that spells out what the law means, or a court ruling that does the same thing \u2013 maybe 10 years after the law was passed.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 364, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 127}, "distance": 0.6866916418075562, "relevance_score": 0.31330835819244385}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>The townhome is in Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada and the strata by-law states</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Secondary suites within Strata Lots are prohibited. Should any Owner of\na Strata Lot be found to have constructed a secondary suite within his or\nher or any other Strata Lot located in the Strata Plan, the Strata Council\nshall be entitled to take any one or more of the following actions:\n(a) take all necessary steps to remove the secondary suite;\n(b) notwithstanding section 25 (1) of these Bylaws, levy a fine not to\nexceed $50.00 per day for each day the Owner is in contravention,\nsuch fine to be added to and form part of the month\u2019s assessment\nor levy to be collected by the Strata Council from the Owner of the\nStrata Lot and the Strata Council are hereby authorized to take all\nnecessary steps to collect such amounts from any Owner;\n(c) evict the tenant in accordance with section 138 of the Strata\nProperty Act;", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 71, "content_length": 935, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6868456602096558, "relevance_score": 0.31315433979034424}, {"content": "<p>This is the only D.C. grand jury indictment for which there is even a colorable free speech argument, but given the case law, it is a weak argument.</p>\n<p><strong>18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1512 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding and Conspiracy To Do The Same)</strong></p>\n<p>Obstruction of an official proceeding in action action with an intended effect and doesn't prevent people from expressing opinions in a way that does not obstruct official government functions, so again this isn't unconstitutional. The charge in this case charges the crime that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Whoever corruptly-- obstructs, influences, or impedes any official\nproceeding, or attempts to do so</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>is guilty of a felony punishable by up to twenty years in prison.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 13, "content_length": 785, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 83}, "distance": 0.6871451139450073, "relevance_score": 0.3128548860549927}, {"content": "<p>On the other hand, in Evanston, we have no facts or concrete legal allegations (e.g. drafts of a legal complaint). The <a href=\"https://cityofevanston.civicweb.net/document/50624/Adoption%20of%20Resolution%2037-R-27,%20Authorizing%20the.pdf?handle=E11C7B73E1B6470DA42362AB80A50C46\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">cited memorandum</a> is a recommendation, not a law. There does exist at least one available <a href=\"https://www.cityofevanston.org/home/showpublisheddocument/90573/638249272128130000\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">council action from 2019</a> which says that</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to divert all adult\nuse cannabis funds received by the Illinois Department of Revenue for\nsales of adult use cannabis to a separate fund in a City account for\nlocal reparations. SECTION 3: The City may receive donations to this\nfund from separate organizations, corporations, and individuals\nestablished herein by the City Council.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 986, "chunk_index": 4, "original_index": 210, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6873399615287781, "relevance_score": 0.3126600384712219}, {"content": "offence.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(5)  A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or\nprocuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has\nnot been prosecuted or has not been found guilty.</p>\n<p>(6)  Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply\nalso for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of\nthat offence because of the operation of subsection (1).</p>\n<p>(7)  If the trier of fact is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a\nperson either:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)  is guilty of a particular offence otherwise than because of the\noperation of subsection (1); or</p>\n<p>(b)  is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1);</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>but is not able to determine which, the trier of fact may nonetheless\nfind the person guilty of that offence.</p>\n<p>...</p>\n<h3>11.3  Commission by proxy</h3>\n<p><strong>A person who:</strong></p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 944, "original_index": 101, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6}, "distance": 0.687453031539917, "relevance_score": 0.312546968460083}, {"content": "<p>As a practical matter, the standards of professionalism in federal criminal prosecutions is so high that <a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/24/the-rarity-of-a-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">almost all charges sought by federal prosecutors from grand juries result in indictments on those charges</a> (federal grand juries refuse to indict approximately one in 16,000 times).</p>\n<p>But, in state courts that use grand juries, which can't pick and choose only the best cases to prosecute, grand juries routinely refuse to indict defendants on a substantial share of charges brought to them by prosecutors (on the order of one in 20). One source <a href=\"http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2020/b2019_20/committees/ctte_s_jud_1/documents/testimony/20200123_04.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">notes</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Statistical figures showing a higher prevalence of grand jury\nreluctance to follow the government in ages past are almost", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 993, "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 16}, "distance": 0.6877307295799255, "relevance_score": 0.31226927042007446}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>There is no default</h2>\n<p>The terms of each contract define what rights are transferred and what are retained. Subject to the law in specific jurisdictions \u2026</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>In some jurisdictions, a copyright transfer requires a written agreement, in others, it doesn\u2019t. However, I can grant an exclusive, perpetual, all-rights licence which is practically a copyright transfer without it having to be in writing.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Some jurisdictions allow a licence or copyright transfer to be cancelled after a given time period. In some this may be automatic, in others, the author must take specific steps.</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>Some do not allow the transfer of some rights - like moral rights, and others do not allow any transfer, while still others will let you give away the farm.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Notwithstanding, assuming the contract is lawful in the relevant jurisdiction, then what it says goes.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 50, "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 925, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6879256367683411, "relevance_score": 0.31207436323165894}, {"content": "<p>So charging all drunk drivers with homicide-level offenses doesn't make much sense given the amount of variation there.</p>\n<p>Also note that drunk driving is a preventative charge: drunk driving is not something that causes harm in and of itself, but we collectively agree that people shouldn't do it because of the risk it carries. Since it doesn't necessarily cause harm, it doesn't really make sense to punish it as severely as something which does cause harm. To prevent harm is one of the main reasons laws exist in the first place, so whether harm was or would've been caused is an important consideration.</p>\n<hr />", "metadata": {"original_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 17, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 627}, "distance": 0.6879383325576782, "relevance_score": 0.3120616674423218}, {"content": "Question Title: Does copyright law prevent the destruction of works?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Does copyright law, in any jurisdiction, prevent the owner of a physical instance of a copyrighted work from destroying it?</p>\n<p>Are there other laws that allow the creator to prevent destruction of artworks by their owners?</p>\n\n\nAnswer 1: <h2>You own it</h2>\n<p>In general, if you own an object, you can do what you like with it if you otherwise comply with the law.</p>\n<p>It is possible that a particular object may be protected under heritage or similar law, but if it isn\u2019t, and you comply with environmental and safety law, you grind that thing into dust if you want to.</p>\n<p>Of course, if it did, you would never be able to delete a voicemail, email, or throw out used notepaper - they\u2019re all copyright.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 47, "content_length": 807}, "distance": 0.6879735589027405, "relevance_score": 0.3120264410972595}, {"content": "<p>Generally, a costly citation is issued of 20-100 <em>times</em> the absent fare. However, some people simply do not pay these citations.  They become familiar to fare inspectors... <strong>and yes, the next step on the consequence chain is arrest</strong>.  That may also be an outcome if the person refuses to identify themselves so a ticket could be issued, or refuse to present proof of payment.</p>\n<p>So it's not like &quot;OMG someone forgot to validate, call MI5&quot; - that is a false representation of what happened there.</p>\n<p>Or it could be exactly that, <em>except the forgetter had an arrest warrant from another agency</em>.  Transit police do a disproportionate amount of gathering up fugitives.</p>\n<hr />\n<hr />", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 13, "content_length": 734, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 158, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6883118152618408, "relevance_score": 0.3116881847381592}, {"content": "<p>Under the doctrine of <a href=\"https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/contract-law-promissory-estoppel-as-a-substitute-for-consideration\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">promissory estoppel</a>, detrimental reliance on a promise can substitute for consideration.</p>\n<p>Inadequacy of consideration, when there is some consideration to support the contract, is governed by the doctrine of unconscionability as between the parties to the contract.</p>\n<p>If the parties to the contract do not exchange &quot;substantially equivalent value&quot; then a buyer in a contract is not a &quot;bona fide purchaser for value&quot; (which impacts the ability of a third-party to challenge the validity of the contract vis-a-vis their rights) and the contract could be a &quot;fraudulent transfer&quot; which can be undone by a third-party creditor if the person on the losing side of the deal is insolvent.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 901, "chunk_index": 6, "original_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6883867979049683, "relevance_score": 0.31161320209503174}, {"content": "<p>Malicious prosecution is a crime, and one I would support lowering the bar to prosecute, but mere innocence of the accused or the lack of sufficiently convincing evidence is insufficient to support punishing the prosecutor that in good faith fails to get a conviction.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 275, "original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 17, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6885311007499695, "relevance_score": 0.3114688992500305}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>The words used in the question, \u201cdirect financial interest,\u201d come from <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro,_Bernstein_and_Co._v._H.L._Green_Co.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Shapiro, Bernstein &amp; Co. v. H. L. Green Co.</em></a>, <a href=\"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/316/304/187299/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">316 F.2d 304</a> (CA2 1963). That case was about whether a department store was liable for the sales of a <a href=\"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concessionaire\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">concessionaire</a> who sold infringing <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_record\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">records</a> in the department store, under a profit sharing agreement with the department store. The court held that this relationship resulted in secondary liability:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 188, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 865, "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6887080669403076, "relevance_score": 0.3112919330596924}, {"content": "Question Title: Does Missouri Revised Statute 578.018 imply that a law enforcement officer must get a warrant to enter private property to check on an animal?", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 212, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 158}, "distance": 0.6888813972473145, "relevance_score": 0.31111860275268555}, {"content": "Question Title: Is it illegal to honk at a police officer in the USA?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Suppose a police car is stopped at a green light and not moving. Is it illegal for me to honk at him? What if I can't drive around him?</p>\n<p>What if it happens to be a civilian vehicle and a plainclothes officer? Is it illegal in this case?</p>\n<p>I see several videos of uniformed and plainclothes officers stopping cars for honking at them.</p>\n<p>As a context I'm giving a link to this video:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAl2UBSgCZU\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAl2UBSgCZU</a></p>\n<p>I find this video shocking behavior behavior from the police. But I want to know legally what's allowed and not allowed. Is the police legally allowed to stop at a yield sign for police related business which is a phone call?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 858, "original_index": 298}, "distance": 0.6889239549636841, "relevance_score": 0.3110760450363159}, {"content": "<p>Considering the nature of the business, we should also consider the age of the owner, as traditionally the average age of lemonade stand owners is such that the owner might not be above the age of criminal liability (that is, the law prevents the owner from being charged with a crime at all because he is two young.).  Typically, in the U.S., the Age of Criminal Liability depends on the jurisdiction.  North Carolina has the youngest age, which children 6 years old or older can be charged, and Massachusetts has the highest, with only children 12 years and older being liable for crimes.  Federally, this age is 11 years old.  28 states have no statutory age of criminal liability, but this might mean case law in the state would provide an age. So depending on the age of the lemonade stand owner and the location of the state, the cops would be unable to affect an arrest.  In this case, the cops would likely remand the owner to the custody of his legal guardian with a recommendation of", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12, "content_length": 996, "original_index": 297}, "distance": 0.6891649961471558, "relevance_score": 0.31083500385284424}, {"content": "get restitution / justice?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>First</strong> Restitution is routinely awarded as part of the sentence following a criminal conviction.</p>\n<p>Restitution doesn't compensate everything that a civil judgment does. For example, it doesn't cover non-economic damages for pain and suffering or some more remote economic losses. But often, it covers the core economic losses from a crime.</p>\n<p><strong>Second</strong> The vast majority of convicted criminals are indigent and judgment proof or can only pay a little in excess of restitution.</p>\n<p>Even <a href=\"https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/criminal-restitution-debt-victims/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">an ability to pay restitution is rare</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Judges ordered 15 percent of federal offenders to pay restitution.\nOffenses for which courts ordered restitution most often were fraud,\nembezzlement, arson, auto theft, tax-related crimes, robbery, burglary", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 185, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 956}, "distance": 0.6892731189727783, "relevance_score": 0.3107268810272217}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Civil and criminal trials are fundamentally different, at least as far as the idealized versions go: in a <em>civil</em> trial, you have a disagreement between two &quot;regular citizens&quot; who are <em>equal</em>. There is no imbalance of power.</p>\n<p>In a criminal trial, you have a regular citizen vs <em>the entire government and society as a whole</em>. There is a substantial imbalance of power, and almost all of the rules and procedures for criminal trials are there to make sure this imbalance of power cannot be abused or even accidentally disadvantage the defendant.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 229, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 597, "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.689331591129303, "relevance_score": 0.310668408870697}, {"content": "<p>(3)Fruits are also the proceeds supplied by a thing or a right by\n  virtue of a legal relationship.</p>\n  \n  <p>Section 100 Emoluments</p>\n  \n  <p>Emoluments are the fruits of a thing or of a right and the benefits\n  that the use of the thing or the right affords.</p>\n  \n  <p>Section 101 Division of fruits</p>\n  \n  <p>If a person is entitled to receive the fruits of a thing or of a right\n  until a particular time or from a particular time on, he is entitled\n  to the following, unless otherwise provided:</p>\n  \n  <ol>\n  <li><p>the products and parts stated in section 99 (1), even if he is to receive them as the fruits of a right, to the extent that they are\n  separated from the thing during the period of entitlement,</p></li>\n  <li><p>other fruits to the extent that they are due during the period of entitlement; however, if the fruits consist in remuneration for\n  permission of use or of enjoyment of fruits and benefits, in interest,", "metadata": {"original_index": 200, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 949}, "distance": 0.6896739602088928, "relevance_score": 0.3103260397911072}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Such exemptions shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vehicle from criminal prosecution for conduct constituting reckless disregard of the safety of persons and property. Nothing in this section shall release the operator of any such vehicle from civil liability for failure to use reasonable care in such operation.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>So the law does not impose any specific speed limit.  Department policy may still impose speed limits on its own officers in this situation, but violating department policy is not a violation of the law <em>per se</em>, if the violation of policy is not reckless.  Of course, the million dollar question is what constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 769, "original_index": 149, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6898902058601379, "relevance_score": 0.31010979413986206}, {"content": "Answer 4: <blockquote>\n<p>I searched for the legal definition of a &quot;child&quot; under Massachusetts\nlaw and could not find any definition.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The definitions are right there in the criminal statutes. The relevant MA statutes are quite clear and different ages apply to different offenses. <em>See, e.g.</em>, the following:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a7 22A. Rape of child; punishment</p>\n<p>Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a\nchild under 16, and compels such child to submit by force and against\nhis will or compels such child to submit by threat of bodily injury,\nshall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for\nany term of years. . . .</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, \u00a7 22A.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u00a7 22B. Rape of a child during commission of certain offenses or by use\nof force; penalties</p>\n<p>Whoever has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 211, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 14, "content_length": 956}, "distance": 0.6900707483291626, "relevance_score": 0.3099292516708374}, {"content": "Question Title: is there a limit of speed cops can go on a high speed pursuit?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Let's have the following scenario, where a police officer is trying to pull a car over, but the car decides to try to run away. HOW fast is the police officer legally allowed to go when chasing the car?</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 149, "content_length": 304, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6900789141654968, "relevance_score": 0.3099210858345032}, {"content": "<hr>\n\n<p>It is not part of the main question, but free speech inside the court room. Well, the Judge is pretty much king in a courtroom. What he says goes. (more or less, like nothing toooooo crazy). In a courtroom, if you do something a Judge doesn't like, he can hold you in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court\" rel=\"noreferrer\">contempt of court</a>. (<a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10826199069820673678&amp;q=376%20U.S.%20681&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">You get no jury for contempt cases.</a>)</p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<p>EDIT: Since I wrote this answer, new law came out from the Supreme Court in \n<a href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Matel v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)</a>. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the Federal Circuit that the disparagement clause [is] facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment\u2019s Free Speech Clause.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 193, "chunk_index": 6, "content_length": 951}, "distance": 0.6904410123825073, "relevance_score": 0.3095589876174927}, {"content": "Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p><em>&quot;The observer can only observe that the holder is holding the phone and can't determine if they are using it or not. This is my opinion of the matter. Thus, in a democratic society, the holder of a phone decides if he/she is using it or not.&quot;</em></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Your opinion is irrelevant. It's why the <strong>United Kingdom</strong> has tightened up the law. Holding a phone while driving, even when stationary, is an offence except in a few limited circumstances.</p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://srb.co.uk/driving-whilst-holding-a-mobile-phone-is-now-illegal/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Solicitors Regulation Authority</a> says</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>Laws have changed for driving and using a mobile phone</strong></p>\n<p>Driving whilst using a mobile phone for texting or calling has been illegal since 2003. However, the law did not cover holding a mobile phone which allowed using social media or playing a game.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 970, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 209, "chunk_index": 6, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.690581738948822, "relevance_score": 0.309418261051178}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>In its <a href=\"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.105.0.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">opposition to the government's motion for a protective order</a> in <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira</a>, Waltine Nauta's defense refers to Donald Trump as the &quot;lead defendant&quot;. I'm wondering whether this is a precisely defined legal term. The term is apparently in common use, including in official government communication (e.g. <a href=\"https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/lead-defendant-massive-la-gang-racketeering-case-sentenced-30-years\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>, <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/lead-defendant-pleads-guilty-case-targeting-international-cocaine-trafficking\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">here</a>, <a", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 18, "content_length": 993}, "distance": 0.6906478404998779, "relevance_score": 0.30935215950012207}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Does this mean that the fragment stolen by giazotto is copyright free?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>No.  If people are using the work, they may be paying a license fee for the privilege, or they may be violating the copyright.  The behavior of others is not a good way of judging how you should behave.  For example, in many cities in Europe you can see people boarding trams or buses without buying tickets, but that doesn't mean that public transportation is free of charge.  Some of those people are breaking the law, but most of them bought a ticket on the previous tram or hold a monthly pass.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 251, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 620, "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6909540891647339, "relevance_score": 0.3090459108352661}, {"content": "<p>While there are occasions where Double Jeopardy does not attach, these are exceedingly rare (one of the few times it was done without declaring a mistrial was in a case where the judge in a bench trial was bribed to return a not guilty verdict.  Because the defendant was never in a legal jeopardy situation, it was ruled he could be tried again for the same criminal event).   Additionally, the State and Federal Government are separate sovereigns for the purposes of Double Jeopardy, and while the Federal Government does not normally try someone who is tried by the state regardless of outcome, it is certainly possible for them to do so as the rules preventing them are policy, not law.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 197, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 697, "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6910943984985352, "relevance_score": 0.30890560150146484}, {"content": "<p>If the expected damages are small, it many not be worth the time, trouble, and costs to sue. In the US, one must register a copyright before bringing suit for infringement of that copyright, and there is a fee for registration. Some owners feel strongly about the use of their work, and will sue on any pretext. Some may prefer to tacitly support uses that they approve of by not bringing suit. One cannot tell the attitude of a particular owner unless that owner has stated what his or her view is.</p>\n<p>Short films are just as protected as full-length feature films, and suit can be filed for infringing the copyright on a short film. But the more expensive a film was to make, and the more money the owner expects it to earn, the more likely it is that the owner will choose to sue.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 167, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 794}, "distance": 0.6911255717277527, "relevance_score": 0.3088744282722473}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.jura-basic.de/aufruf.php?file=6&amp;art=&amp;find=Arbeitsrecht_Betriebsrisiko\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Source</a></p>\n<p>Translation:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The employer must bear the risk of the impossibility of work performance for reasons within the company and remains obligated to continue to pay wages, even if these reasons are not due to operational disruptions or are based on a failure of the material or personal resources of the company, but have an external effect on the company (BAG, 09.03.1983 - 4 AZR 301/80). This refers precisely to causes that affect typical operating resources (e.g. machines, factory buildings, heating systems) from the outside and present themselves to the employer as a case of force majeure, e.g. natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, fires), accidents and extreme weather conditions. In all these cases, the employer has to bear the operating risk (thus BAG loc.cit., confirmed by BAG, 23.9.2015 - 5 AZR 146/14, para. 22).</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 6, "content_length": 999, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 14}, "distance": 0.6911951303482056, "relevance_score": 0.30880486965179443}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2>The witness can go outside and ask questions of the witness\u2019 lawyers</h2>\n<p>So if, for example, Mr Trump chooses to testify to the grand jury he goes in alone - no lawyers. If he wants to consult his lawyers he needs to ask to do, leave the room and consult them. If I were Mr Trump\u2019s lawyer I would be worried that he wouldn\u2019t know when he should do that.</p>\n\n\nTags: lawyer, criminal-procedure, grand-jury, indictment", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 156, "content_length": 434}, "distance": 0.6913439035415649, "relevance_score": 0.30865609645843506}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>In Australia this could fall under common purpose or commission by proxy. From the Criminal Code 1995:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<h3>11.2  Complicity and common purpose</h3>\n<p><strong>(1)  A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that\noffence and is punishable accordingly.</strong></p>\n<p>(2)  For the person to be guilty:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)  the person\u2019s conduct must have in fact aided, abetted,\ncounselled or procured the commission of the offence by the other\nperson; and</p>\n<p>(b)  the offence must have been committed by the other person.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>(3)  For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)  his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the\ncommission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type\nthe other person committed; or</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 942, "original_index": 101, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.691398024559021, "relevance_score": 0.308601975440979}, {"content": "Question Title: Legality of stealing news\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Say I read in the newspaper that a kangaroo shot a man on highway 45.</p>\n<p>If I put this information on my homepage, and don't copy the exact wording of the newspaper, this is probably ok and not a violation of copyright or any other law.</p>\n<p>But what if I read the newspaper every day, summarize facts from it, and sell this information?</p>\n<p>It does not sound legal to me, but I would not know which law I am violating.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 141, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 493, "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6914314031600952, "relevance_score": 0.3085685968399048}, {"content": "<p>Driving while intoxicated vs. driving while intoxicated and causing death is not the only example where moral luck results in a distinction in punishment. Other examples are:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>dangerous driving vs. dangerous driving that causes death</li>\n<li>a successful offence vs. an attempted offence (generally resulting in a maximum sentence less than that of the successful offence)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Nagel writes:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If someone has had too\nmuch to drink and his car swerves on to the sidewalk, he can count himself morally lucky if there are no pedestrians in its path. If there were, he would\nbe to blame for their deaths, and would probably be prosecuted for\nmanslaughter. But if he hurts no one, although his recklessness is exactly the\nsame, he is guilty of a far less serious legal offence and will certainly reproach\nhimself and be reproached by others much less severely. To take another legal\nexample, the penalty for attempted murder is less than that for successful", "metadata": {"original_index": 0, "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 995, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6914715766906738, "relevance_score": 0.30852842330932617}, {"content": "Question Title: May putting others at peril worsen the sentence?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Bob the Burglar specializes in fencing of stolen safety equipment (fire extinguishers, AEDs, etc.).</p>\n<p>One night, he breaks into a factory and steals the fire extinguishers and a fire hose. The theft is not immediately discovered. The next day, during ordinary work hours, a small fire breaks out that could normally have been put out easily, but because there's nothing to do so, the factory burns to the ground and several workers die.</p>\n<p>Could Bob get a charge (or even conviction) for manslaughter? Clearly he didn't intend to really harm anybody.</p>\n<p>What if nothing more had happened? Could he be convicted for attempted manslaughter just because he put the workers in peril with his theft?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 274, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 795}, "distance": 0.6915663480758667, "relevance_score": 0.3084336519241333}, {"content": "Question Title: What happens to one\u2019s tenancy if one is evicted for a breach of it under section 8, Housing Act 1988?", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 178, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 117, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6915867924690247, "relevance_score": 0.30841320753097534}, {"content": "<p>I can find no requirement that the identification requires the person to mention that they are on probation.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 115, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 263}, "distance": 0.6917764544487, "relevance_score": 0.30822354555130005}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2>No, they are not exempt</h2>\n<p>Consumer protection laws (in general) apply to anyone doing business with consumers in that jurisdiction.</p>\n<p>You need to follow that law and apply to the company for a refund in compliance with the law. If they refuse, you can report them to the German regulator who may, or may not, take action against them.</p>\n<p>If you paid with a credit card, PayPal etc., once the company has broken the law, you can apply to them for a reversal of the charge. Similarly, most online platforms like eBay or Amazon will reverse the charge if you used them.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 143, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 599}, "distance": 0.691897451877594, "relevance_score": 0.308102548122406}, {"content": "be protected for their own sake&quot;. The citation to the article is Alan K. Chen and Justin Marceau, &quot;High Value Lies, Ugly Truths, and the First Amendment,&quot; 68 Vanderbilt Law Review 1435 (2015).</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 83, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 211, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8}, "distance": 0.6919430494308472, "relevance_score": 0.30805695056915283}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Most sanctions and crimes require the person sanctioned to have some knowledge of the facts that make their actions crimes or subject to sanction.</p>\n<p>Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if the person receiving a small amount of crypto-currency has no knowledge&lt;1&gt; of the facts that would make the transaction a prohibited transaction, this won't generally give rise to sanctions or criminal penalties.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 299, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 435}, "distance": 0.691983699798584, "relevance_score": 0.308016300201416}, {"content": "Tags: corporate-law, any-jurisdiction, salary, employee", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 41, "content_length": 55, "chunk_index": 13, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6920348405838013, "relevance_score": 0.30796515941619873}, {"content": "Tags: copyright, licensing", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 172, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 26, "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.6922101974487305, "relevance_score": 0.30778980255126953}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the <em>why</em> that you've asked us not to consider.</p>\n<p>If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either <a href=\"https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_7_lawyer_as_witness/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Rule 3.7</a> or <a href=\"https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#d\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Canon 3</a>.</p>\n<p>If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Crim. R. 12</a>, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 972, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 132}, "distance": 0.6923458576202393, "relevance_score": 0.30765414237976074}, {"content": "Question Title: Can I legally give someone the right to cannibalize me?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Let say I and a friend are stranded somewhere, starving, and confident rescue will not come until we both have starved.  Realizing that it makes more sense for one to live then both of us to starve we draw straws and I draw poorly.  I give my friend permission to both kill me and eat my body to survive.</p>\n<p>I've agreed to this plan, perhaps we even record me on video giving him permission, saying I'm of sane mind and why I made the decision etc.</p>\n<p>My friend gets home afterwards and tells everyone how great I tasted.  For some reason people get upset and call the police.</p>\n<p>My question, is my friend guilty of a crime?  Has my permission, and the necessity of the situation, made his actions legal?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 123, "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 811}, "distance": 0.6925207376480103, "relevance_score": 0.30747926235198975}, {"content": "Question Body: <p><a href=\"https://notalwaysright.com/roommate-roulette-cannabis-cops-and-a-careless-cretin/298326/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">This story</a> brought up a bit of a debate on the legality of MD cops entering a rental home when one renter originally stated that they could not enter but another later said they could.</p>\n<p>As I understand it according to Georgia v Randolph 2004 usually this would be unlawful, though the cops apparently did it and got away with it in this case.  I've seen two arguments for why it may have been lawful.</p>\n<ol>\n<li><p>after being invited by the second roommate the cop glared at the first and said excuse me, and the first relented and let the guard in.  So one could argue when he let the cops in he had removed his opposition to a search.  I'm not sure if the polices actions count as compelling the tenants moving or not.</p>\n</li>", "metadata": {"content_length": 886, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 161, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6930006742477417, "relevance_score": 0.3069993257522583}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>Although <a href=\"http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-arrested-yelling-swearing-cop.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">swearing at a police officer in itself is not illegal</a>, the police are very likely to try to find something else to charge you with \u2013 along the lines of &quot;<a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">contempt of cop</a>.&quot; The law is very nuanced, one cannot say that anything is blanket legal or illegal.</p>\n\n\nAnswer 4: <p>You're asking about an exception to the right to free speech, and it turns out <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions\" rel=\"nofollow\">there's a good page on that question on Wikipedia</a>.  I was amused to discover that, among the exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court, are \"fighting words\" and \"offensive speech,\" which I believe would be the closest proscriptions on \"cursing.\"  (\"Threats of violence\" are also generally not protected.)</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 994, "original_index": 193, "chunk_index": 10}, "distance": 0.6931307315826416, "relevance_score": 0.3068692684173584}, {"content": "<p>But doesn't this violate the Constitution, or some personal freedom? If a random passerby happens to see cars doing donuts, and stops to rubberneck (just watch), or even record, can that really be made illegal? I'm no expert in law or the constitution, but it just seems like an overreach to me... Perhaps it violates the First Amendment, which includes the right to gather and disseminate information about matters of public interest, if I recall correctly.</p>\n<p>Edit: link to <a href=\"https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/watching-a-sideshow-in-san-jose-is-now-a-crime/1969817695\" rel=\"noreferrer\">an article</a> about the law being passed on April 30, 2019</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 667, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 176}, "distance": 0.6935381889343262, "relevance_score": 0.30646181106567383}, {"content": "Answer 1: <ul>\n<li>Some people seem to believe that just because something happens 'in the internet' it is somehow outside normal jurisdictions.<br />\n<strong>Wrong.</strong><br />\nIn may be harder to investigate and prosecute crimes in the internet, but the laws apply all the same. There are some problems when it is unclear 'where in the world' something did happen -- in the jurisdiction of the perpetrator, the victim, or the service provider? But problems of jurisdiction apply e.g. to international fraud cases in the non-web-world as well.</li>\n<li>In many jurisdictions, the informed and voluntary consent makes <em>some</em> things legal which would otherwise be illegal.<br />\nFor instance, if two boxers get into the ring, it is understood that each of them did consent to be hit by the other. But usually two fighters could not legally agree to a fight to the death, because even if there are laws on assisted suicide, they do not apply to a fight.</li>", "metadata": {"original_index": 256, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 966}, "distance": 0.6937323212623596, "relevance_score": 0.3062676787376404}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Based on a true story:  Bob's car is parked in the street.  Ted is driving down the street recklessly with Alan as a passenger.  Ted sideswipes Bob's car doing quite a lot of damage, but takes off.</p>\n<p>Next day, Alan shows up at Bob's doorstep saying, &quot;You wanna get the guy who sideswiped your car last night?  I was the passenger in that car and I was scared witless and I banged my head hard when he hit your car.&quot;   Bob says, &quot;Heck yes&quot; and Alan takes him to Ted's house where Ted's vehicle is parked.  Bob gets pictures of Ted's vehicle showing the damage and paint scrapings from Bob's car.  He's got this evidence plus Alan as a witness.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 92, "content_length": 689, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6938084959983826, "relevance_score": 0.30619150400161743}, {"content": "<p>The case law and related legal theory is reviewed and analyzed in <a href=\"https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/01/56-1-The-Puzzle-of-Inciting-Suicide.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">this law review article</a> with the following abstract:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In 2017, a Massachusetts court convicted Michelle Carter of\nmanslaughter for encouraging the suicide of Conrad Roy by text\nmessage, but imposed a sentence of only fifteen months. The conviction\nwas unprecedented in imposing homicide liability for verbal\nencouragement of apparently voluntary suicide. Yet if Carter killed,\nher purpose that Roy die arguably merited liability for murder and a\nmuch longer sentence. This Article argues that our ambivalence about\nwhether and how much to punish Carter reflects suicide\u2019s dual\ncharacter as both a harm to be prevented and a choice to be respected.\nAs such, the Carter case requires us to choose between competing", "metadata": {"content_length": 976, "chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 31}, "distance": 0.6938841342926025, "relevance_score": 0.30611586570739746}, {"content": "Question Title: What is the legal case for someone getting arrested publicizing information about nuclear weapons deduced from public knowledge\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I have a vague memory of a court case involving a man being prosecuted for publicizing information about nuclear weapons. He obtained that information by logic deduction and probably calculations from all the public knowledge (newspapers, tv, etc). I have not been able to find that case. Does anyone know which is?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 482, "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 201}, "distance": 0.6941343545913696, "relevance_score": 0.30586564540863037}, {"content": "Question Title: Understanding laws about medical and mental health advice/treatment", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 214, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 83}, "distance": 0.6942712068557739, "relevance_score": 0.3057287931442261}, {"content": "Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>Laws don't update often</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Laws update more often than you think between new legislation, new regulations, and especially, new case law interpreting the statutes and the common law. As pertinent to any particular U.S. state, it probably updates at least several times a month, and often multiple times a week.</p>\n<p>When I was a professional journalist covering a Colorado law beat (among others), some of my go to sources were for state law:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>The Colorado Supreme Court's <a href=\"https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case announcements webpage</a> (it updates most Mondays, or on Tuesdays when the Monday is a holiday).</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals <a href=\"https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">case announcements webpage</a> (it updates most Thursdays).</p>\n</li>", "metadata": {"original_index": 127, "content_length": 989, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.694494366645813, "relevance_score": 0.305505633354187}, {"content": "Question Title: Fake video from saab\n\nQuestion Body: <p><a href=\"https://web.archive.org/web/20230715091936/https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/fake-gripen-video/599765\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://web.archive.org/web/20230715091936/https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/fake-gripen-video/599765</a></p>\n<p>See above. Saab released a video falsely claiming the gripen turned 9g. It was actually a 4g turn.</p>\n<p>Do the customers of the gripen have the right to sue the company for false advertising?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 510, "original_index": 203, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6945284605026245, "relevance_score": 0.3054715394973755}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>Intelligence <strong>is</strong> Law Enforcement.</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachrichtendienste_des_Bundes\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">BND, Verfassungsschutz and MAD and the Landesbeh\u00f6rden f\u00fcr Verfassungsschutz create <strong>19</strong> branches of intelligence organisations</a>. Those are specially classed as <em>Nachrichtendienste</em> in german law, separate from the federal police branches of Bundeskriminalamt (roughly equivalent ot the FBI), the Zollkriminalamt (roughly the customs and border patrol) and other federal police or military.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 817, "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 27, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6945573091506958, "relevance_score": 0.3054426908493042}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GZn7G.png\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><img src=\"https://i.stack.imgur.com/GZn7G.png\" alt=\"enter image description here\" /></a></p>\n<p>Medium security inmates either have 0-15 points with a prior serious escape attempt or a sentence of 20 years or more remaining, or 16-23 points. But they have less than 24 points, less than 30 years of their sentence remaining, are not part of a disruptive group (read hard core gang member) and have not been involved in a prison disturbance. The circumstances that gets someone to 16-23 points are not simple to describe succinctly.</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.frostbussert.com/files/cj_v31n01_sp16_folder_vasquezbussert.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Another source</a> explains the factors involved (PSR is the pre-sentencing report presented to the judge before ruling on a sentence in the case):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>", "metadata": {"original_index": 108, "chunk_index": 7, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 877, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6945724487304688, "relevance_score": 0.30542755126953125}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/france\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-france-tooltip-container\">france</a></p>\n<h2>Yes, because it changes the charge</h2>\n<p>Bob's conduct falls under <a href=\"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000024042647\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">article 221-6 du Code P\u00e9nal</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Le fait de causer, dans les conditions et selon les distinctions pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l'article 121-3, par maladresse, imprudence, inattention, n\u00e9gligence ou manquement \u00e0 une obligation de prudence ou de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 impos\u00e9e par la loi ou le r\u00e8glement, la mort d'autrui constitue un homicide involontaire puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 274, "content_length": 851}, "distance": 0.6949599385261536, "relevance_score": 0.30504006147384644}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>A business has the right to refuse service, except in the case of unlawful discrimination. &quot;Sued us&quot; is not a protected characteristic.</p>\n<p>Unless part of the settlement was that the business must serve that customer in future, there is no way this could be considered contempt.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 145, "content_length": 308, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6950902342796326, "relevance_score": 0.30490976572036743}, {"content": "<li>PETER MIRFIELD, SILENCE, CONFESSIONS AND IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE 11 (1997) (explaining that evidence indicates that the use of\nmanipulative techniques has declined since the enactment of the Police\nand Criminal Evidence Act); Slobogin, <em>supra</em> note 5, at 43.</li>\n<li>Code of Practice on Audio Recording Interviews with Suspects (Code E),\n3.1 (promulgated under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60, \u00a7 67, pt. VI (Eng.)) [hereinafter Code E].</li>\n<li>See Slobogin, supra note 5, at 43.</li>\n<li>See, e.g., Magid, supra note 3, at 1169-70 (describing the criticism of commentators and the popular press of the false\nconfessions that arise from the use of deceptive interrogation\ntechniques); Margaret Paris, <em>Trust, Lies, and Interrogation</em>, 3 VA.\nJ. SOC. POL'Y &amp; L. 3, 9 (1996) (advocating the prohibition of any lies\nduring questioning); Welsh S. White, <em>False Confessions and the\nConstitution: Safeguards Against Untrustworthy Confessions</em>, 32 HARV.", "metadata": {"original_index": 66, "content_length": 998, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 14, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6951494812965393, "relevance_score": 0.3048505187034607}, {"content": "<li>Insults, libel, and slander are not on the same level as homicide. There are jurisdictions where they are not prosecuted without the request of the victim. But an insult might also violate other laws, e.g. disturbing the peace. So don't bet on such an app unless you know <em>for sure</em> which jurisdictions are involved.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 338, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 256}, "distance": 0.6951989531517029, "relevance_score": 0.3048010468482971}, {"content": "within the purview of the police, but burning trash on the sidewalk would be. Because of the requirement for approval, you probably can't pay to get a response to a robbery (still takes 24 hours to get &quot;short notice&quot; approval).</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "content_length": 241, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6952681541442871, "relevance_score": 0.3047318458557129}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>If you pushed her back <strong>after</strong> she slapped you <strong>and</strong> it is not clear that a second slapping would occur (<strong>or</strong> she slapped you, because you pushed her)</p>\n<ul>\n<li>then it is <strong>not</strong> self-defence\n<ul>\n<li>you (<strong>or</strong> she) did not <strong>prevent a present</strong> unlawful attack</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>If it is clear that you are <strong>going to be</strong> slapped</p>\n<ul>\n<li>then pushing her away, in a reasonable manor, is self-defence\n<ul>\n<li>you <strong>prevented a present</strong> unlawful attack</li>\n</ul>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p>What is considered <strong>reasonable</strong> will later be determined by a judge.</p>\n<hr />\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0186\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">\u00a7 32 - Self-defence StGB</a><br />", "metadata": {"original_index": 35, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 878}, "distance": 0.6953105926513672, "relevance_score": 0.3046894073486328}, {"content": "Question Title: Can I sue the producer and/or the state TV for not acknowledging me?", "metadata": {"original_index": 255, "content_length": 84, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6953756809234619, "relevance_score": 0.3046243190765381}, {"content": "Tags: legal-terms, british-columbia, any-jurisdiction, real-property, strata-property", "metadata": {"original_index": 68, "content_length": 85, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.6954716444015503, "relevance_score": 0.3045283555984497}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I visited Cologne last year. I was taking a selfie with my phone's inner camera in front of a monument. I was unaware that my phone's outer camera was facing police officers conducting checks. One of them noticed it and approached me. He saw the picture of me with the monument instead of them, apologized for his misunderstanding then went back to work.</p>\n<p>Is it an offense to photograph the police in Germany? I searched multiple websites but people gave very different answers and opinions, even on the same forum. I've never been charged for such offense anywhere in the EU but Germany is well known for its strict privacy laws and I do not wish to break any laws.</p>\n<p>If it is indeed illegal and I get fined for it, will my past record add extra burden every time I visit Germany such as extra checks or questioning? Or is it something I can brush off since I live in Schengen anyway?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 918, "original_index": 62, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6956421136856079, "relevance_score": 0.3043578863143921}, {"content": "Question Title: In the US, if I chose to let someone die purely because I have the right to use my body however I choose, would I be charged with murder?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I'll elaborate on the title:</p>\n\n<p>Someone asked me the question: </p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>Do you believe people should be forced to allow the use of their organs without consent?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>And in order to respond, I wondered what a court of law in the US would rule in the following scenario: </p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 484, "original_index": 102, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6956700682640076, "relevance_score": 0.30432993173599243}, {"content": "<p>The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Destroying the van could be either <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Criminal Damage</em></a> or <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard#_Toc536105663\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>perverting the course of justice</em></a>, again depending on the circumstances.  The latter is committed when an accused:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><p>does an act or series of acts;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>which has or have a tendency to pervert; and</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>which is or are intended to pervert;</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>the course of public justice.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 107, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 907, "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.6957608461380005, "relevance_score": 0.3042391538619995}, {"content": "<p>Could the acceptance of the pardon then have any bearing on the case in the other jurisdiction?  Can the admission of guilt be used in the new case?  Can it be used as \"reasonable cause\" for various actions?  Does the defendant <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/q/22207/25263\">lose their right to refuse to testify</a> in the new case?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 347, "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 276, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6958423852920532, "relevance_score": 0.3041576147079468}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Does the legal usage of the word court as in a court of law derive from the idea of a royal court, as an expression of the idea that the original courts of law were ultimately simple vehicles for the exercise or discharge of royal authority on behalf of the royal sovereign?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court#Etymology\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Yes</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The meaning of a judicial assembly is first attested in the 12th century, and derives from the earlier usage to designate a sovereign and his entourage, which met to adjudicate disputes....</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n\nTags: legal-terms, legal-history", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 49, "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 666}, "distance": 0.6959556341171265, "relevance_score": 0.30404436588287354}, {"content": "<p>The decision aptly concludes with: \"If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social \u201cvolatility,\u201d free speech would be endangered.\"</p>\n\n\nAnswer 2: <p>A recent state supreme court case spoke directly to this issue. <em>Ruling date: June 25, 2015.</em></p>\n\n<hr>\n\n<h2>The U.S. Constitution protects your right to curse at the police.</h2>\n\n<p><a href=\"http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/court-first-amendment-protects-profanity-against-police/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">The Seattle Times reports here</a> that the <a href=\"http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/886946.pdf\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in the case of State of Washington v. E.J.J.</a>:</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 8, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 750, "original_index": 193}, "distance": 0.6961332559585571, "relevance_score": 0.30386674404144287}, {"content": "Question Title: Can you make the police department pay for damage done to your property if you get swatted?", "metadata": {"content_length": 107, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 110}, "distance": 0.6963634490966797, "relevance_score": 0.3036365509033203}, {"content": "</li>\n<li><p>perhaps they suspect but can't prove that she deals drugs or conducts some other sort of illegal activity at her residence, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>perhaps she is one of the few black residents of the neighborhood (or her house guests are black) and the police want to harass her to cause her to leave the neighborhood, and they don't think that she will be able to punish them for their misconduct effectively though legal channels before getting fed up and moving away. For example, if they make an arrest and can articulate some kind of alleged probable cause even if it doesn't hold up in court, they may be able to dramatically inconvenience this women with impunity, particularly if the local trial court judges that would consider the arrest decide to side with the police even when misconduct would be clear to a neutral observer.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "original_index": 218, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 863}, "distance": 0.6963741183280945, "relevance_score": 0.3036258816719055}, {"content": "<p>Like most legal questions, the answer cannot be provided in a vacuum and a full factual context is necessary to know if the police conduct is illegal or not.</p>\n<p><strong>Valid Reasons</strong></p>\n<p><em>Part of A Pattern Of Evidence Showing A Suspected Vice Offense</em></p>\n<p>One possible subtext is that the police believe that the premises is a <em>de facto</em> house of prostitution, or that she is dealing drugs out of the house, even though they don't yet have the evidence to arrest her on those suspicions.</p>\n<p>The police could be implying in their threat to arrest her that the presence of &quot;house guests&quot; would give them probable cause to arrest her on suspicion of a vice offense such as prostitution or drug dealing.</p>\n<p><em>Municipal Ordinance Violations</em></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 800, "original_index": 218, "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6964077949523926, "relevance_score": 0.3035922050476074}, {"content": "<p>But, for a general description from a specialized dictionary, see <em>Black's Law Dictionary</em>, 10th ed. (2014):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>child</strong>. <strong>1</strong>. An unemancipated person under the age of majority. <strong>2</strong>. <em>Hist</em>. At common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14. <strong>3</strong>. A boy or girl; a young person. <strong>4</strong>. A son or daughter. <strong>5</strong>. A baby or fetus.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 472, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 211}, "distance": 0.6965426802635193, "relevance_score": 0.3034573197364807}, {"content": "<p>One could potentially also argue that such actions are in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) under the same provisions which make denial-of-service (DoS) attacks illegal. UK law also has provisions under the Communications Act 2003 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA), with similar advice given by OFCOM (<a href=\"https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law/jammers\" rel=\"noreferrer\">1</a>, <a href=\"https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement\" rel=\"noreferrer\">2</a>, <a href=\"https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law/jammers\" rel=\"noreferrer\">3</a>) as the FCC gives.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 34, "content_length": 649, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.6965954899787903, "relevance_score": 0.3034045100212097}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Let's say that over a year later Lizzie receives, (again via USPS...) a notification of conviction and default judgement against her for failure to appear. There is no specific reason given for the allegation, only a list of possibilities:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<ol>\n<li>You did not file a response to your citation.</li>\n<li>You filed a response, but your response was missing information and could not be processed.</li>\n<li>You did not appear at the court hearing you requested.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Each one of these is rebuttable. (<em>even if proof of delivery is absent, a sworn statement of fact ought to override an unspecified, unsubstantiated, and anonymous allegation from the boilerplate language of a form letter, right?</em>)</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 763, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 165}, "distance": 0.6966089606285095, "relevance_score": 0.3033910393714905}, {"content": "<p><em>My major questions in my head for that case would be:</em></p>\n<p><strong>Does making a photo of copyrighted material equals to making an illegal copy?</strong></p>\n<p><strong>Does sending that photo to a server to process count as distribution?</strong></p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 288, "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 265, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6968105435371399, "relevance_score": 0.3031894564628601}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>There is no explicit requirement that the work be legally produced, and there is no exception for copyright protection if the work is illegally produced.</p>\n<p>See also Celia Lerman, &quot;<a href=\"https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-2-No-2_2_Lerman_Protecting_Artistic_Vandalism.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law</a>&quot; (2013) 2 N.Y.U. J. Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 295:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 112, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 512}, "distance": 0.696993350982666, "relevance_score": 0.303006649017334}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>So warrant needed or not? and if so, what legal action can be taken\nfor trespass, rights violations under color of law etc. if any?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If there is a search without a warrant or probable cause was not present, and an exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, and the property owner believes that their 4th Amendment rights were intentionally violated by law enforcement in the warrantless search in violation of clearly established law to the contrary, a civil lawsuit against the law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 can be brought in state or federal court.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 212, "chunk_index": 9, "content_length": 617}, "distance": 0.6971261501312256, "relevance_score": 0.3028738498687744}, {"content": "<p><strong>Fifth</strong> The statute of limitations for a civil lawsuit in tort for damages associated with a crime often runs before the criminal proceeding is concluded if there is not a plea bargain, this makes the legal work in the civil lawsuit more expensive and often crime victims don't think about the possibility of a civil suit until the dust has settled in the criminal case and they realize that the restitution award received does not fully compensate them for their losses.</p>\n<p>Keep in mind that crime victims usually don't hire lawyers because the prosecution is handled by state and local government paid lawyers, but victims aren't the clients of prosecutors and prosecutors usually don't advise victims on the possibility of bringing a civil lawsuit.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 777, "chunk_index": 10, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 185}, "distance": 0.6971697807312012, "relevance_score": 0.30283021926879883}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>They come to her house excessively and have even told her if she has\nhouse guests they will arrest her. Can they really do that?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Absent special circumstances such as those discussed below, however, having house guests is not a crime, and some laws that purport to prohibit this are unconstitutional.</p>\n<p>But, there are a variety of proper and improper reasons that this could be happening, as well as some that are in a legal gray area.</p>\n<p>Clearly, the police are doing this for some reason, proper or improper, because it is a sustained pattern of conduct that seems to be singling out one person. But, without more of a factual context it is hard to tell what that reason is so that it is possible to determine whether or not their threat has a legal basis.</p>\n<p>Like most legal questions, the answer cannot be provided in a vacuum and a full factual context is necessary to know if the police conduct is illegal or not.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 982, "original_index": 218}, "distance": 0.6973458528518677, "relevance_score": 0.3026541471481323}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-edlind-1\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>United States v. Edlind</em>, 887 F.3d 166, 173-174 (2018)</a>.</p>\n<p>Therefore, the Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction in <em>Edlind</em> even where the defendant explicitly told the victim to tell the truth:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 337, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 65}, "distance": 0.6974167823791504, "relevance_score": 0.3025832176208496}, {"content": "<p>This does not allow the buyer to create derivative works from the copyrighted material. One still cannot take photographs of a work and publish them as the original copyright sticks. The first sale doctrine attaches only to the material copy bought.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. <a href=\"https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">ref</a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Note that the original IS a &quot;copy&quot; for the purposes of this statute, even if no other copies, as commonly understood in language, were made.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 47, "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 898, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6974753737449646, "relevance_score": 0.3025246262550354}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2>There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion</h2>\n<p>First, it\u2019s not clear that the document you signed amounts to a contract. For example, what consideration did the school give you in return for the permission you gave them? Providing you with an education doesn\u2019t count - they were legally obliged to do that already.</p>\n<p>If it is a contract then whether and how it can be revoked would depend on the terms of that contract witch I\u2019m guessing you don\u2019t have a copy of. Notwithstanding, as a minor, you have the right to void the contract until a reasonable time after you turn 18. Even if it is now many years since that happened, it might be reasonable since you only just discovered the website.</p>\n<p>If it isn\u2019t a contract, then it would be revocable at any time.</p>\n<h2>Practicalities</h2>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 819, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 125}, "distance": 0.6974788904190063, "relevance_score": 0.30252110958099365}, {"content": "by the First Amendment. The doctrine is a fairly recent construction,\nthe problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in\nthe context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party\nmembership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise\nto any separate theory of association.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/377/288.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">source - 1</a> <a href=\"https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/361/516.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">source - 2</a></p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 550, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 219, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6976548433303833, "relevance_score": 0.3023451566696167}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>No, one cannot safely assume that because some people have done a thing without being sued, that it is OK to do a similar thing and no suit is possible.</p>\n<p>It is possible that people who upload a video, or a section of it, have permission. It is perhaps more likely that the copyright owner does not choose to sue, for whatever reason. But a different owner of a different video might make a different choice.</p>\n<p>Uploading a video, or even a section of a video, without permission, will be copyright infringement, unless an <em><strong>exception to copyright</strong></em> such as <em><strong>fair use</strong></em> or <em><strong>fair dealing</strong></em> applies. Such an infringement gives the copyright owner valid grounds to bring a suit. But the owner can choose whether or not to sue.  An owner can sue in one case of infringement but not in another, for any reason or none.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 907, "original_index": 167, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.6978098750114441, "relevance_score": 0.3021901249885559}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Can you help me understand which of these are legal and which are illegal in the U.S., and briefly why? (If the answers vary by state, assume state with &quot;medium strictness&quot;, or just answer for the state you are familiar with.)</p>\n<p>(A) I write and publish a book called &quot;Cure your brain tumor by eating carrots!&quot; in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your brain tumor with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no medical training.</p>\n<p>(B) I write and publish a book called &quot;Cure your depression by eating carrots!&quot; in which I explain in detail how you can (and should) cure your depression with carrots. I state clearly at the start of the book that I have no psychological training.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 786, "original_index": 214, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6979508996009827, "relevance_score": 0.30204910039901733}, {"content": "<p>Also, an indictment is more than a mere accusation. An indictment in a determination of a <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Rubber_stamp_for_the_prosecution\" rel=\"noreferrer\">grand jury</a> that probable cause exists to believe that the person indicted committed the crime charged. In the federal court system grand juries are composed of 16 to 23 members and 12 members of the grand jury must concur in a decision to indict a defendant on a charge for there to be an indictment on that charge.</p>\n<p>This prevents people from enduring criminal prosecutions on charges that a majority of a grand jury finds are so baseless that there is not sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the defendant committed that crime. The grand jury must base its decision to indict or not on actual evidence in support of the charges in the form of sworn witness testimony and exhibits, not just the allegations of the prosecutor.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 16, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 973}, "distance": 0.6979628801345825, "relevance_score": 0.3020371198654175}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Typical in any of the several <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></p>\n<p>No, this fails to meet two of the core elements of libel.  The statement must be</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Adverse (fails)</li>\n<li>Stated by one party</li>\n<li>To a second party</li>\n<li>About a third party (fails)</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The case you're thinking of, where a company brags excessively about their company or products, are covered by a variety of securities and trade laws, such as false advertising.  Many of these are applicable in the Federal domain, i.e. are Federal rather than state laws.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 151, "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 796, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6985318660736084, "relevance_score": 0.3014681339263916}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>The words &quot;<em>wickedly, maliciously, of his own wicked and corrupt mind, being a person of evil disposition, &amp;c.</em>&quot; are, in general, mere matter of aggravation and not material. But where an act must be done with a particular <em>intent</em>, in order to render it criminal, an evil intention must be averred upon the record; and, in such case, the intent must be proved as laid or the variance will be fatal.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 25, "content_length": 461, "chunk_index": 12, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6985505819320679, "relevance_score": 0.30144941806793213}, {"content": "</ul>\n<p>If the threat of gluing someone to a tree is a <strong>real</strong> threat under the law depends very much again. In Germany, it might be interpreted as too hilarious to be considered a true threat, but humiliating enough to constitute one of the insult laws, but the lyrics do not offer enough facts to make a proper analysis for this part.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 297, "content_length": 355, "chunk_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6985644102096558, "relevance_score": 0.30143558979034424}, {"content": "Question Title: How many witnesses\u2019 testimony constitutes or transcends reasonable doubt?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Alice punches Bob. Or stabs him. Either way it was from behind and he did not see who did it before going unconscious, but the entire thing was witnessed by Charles. However there was no other evidence of Alice\u2019s crime like video footage or the like.</p>\n<p>Charles testifies as to what he witnessed. Is Charles\u2019s word enough to convict Alice of a crime?</p>\n<p>What if it was also witnessed by Diana and they both testify, what then?</p>\n<p>\u2014\u2014\u2014</p>\n<p>Or, Generally speaking, if someone presents to police and then court saying with a consistent narrative of events \u201cthis person hit me at the place and this time,\u201d and there is perhaps a bruise to back it then that is often enough to convict the accused?</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 819, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 258, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.6986865997314453, "relevance_score": 0.3013134002685547}, {"content": "<p>So the answer to your question must depend on what is meant by 'gaslighting' and the circumstances in which it has been said to have occurred. It seems to me that people understand and use the word differently - for me it pertains to intimate or family relationships (as in its alleged origin, the film <em>Gaslight</em>), some people seem to use it for different serious behaviour and other people use it for relatively trivial behaviour.</p>\n<p>In the intimate or family relationship context, gaslighting might be part or all of the behaviour alleged to be the controlling or coercive behaviour contrary to <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s76 Serious Crime Act 2015</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>76 Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family\nrelationship</p>\n<p>(1)A person (A) commits an offence if\u2014</p>\n<p>(a)A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another\nperson (B) that is controlling or coercive,</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 990, "chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 180}, "distance": 0.6986948251724243, "relevance_score": 0.3013051748275757}, {"content": "<p>Now back to the PI lawyer, they make money by suing insurance companies for personal injury (damage to your car is not a &quot;personal injury&quot;) because they have the ability to pay. Private individuals, especially those without insurance, typically do not have the ability to pay. The PI can typically recover all the attorneys fees + up to half the judgement. So even if the PI agreed to take the case, and they won some amount (let's say $50,000 which includes attorneys fees and judgement), Ted would probably not be able to pay for this. The PI goes back to the client for the fees and now Bob is in even worse condition, since a majority of the $50,000 judgement would be attorneys fees.</p>\n<p>Really the best remedy Bob has in this case is to sue Ted in small claims for the value of the vehicle up to the maximum of the court (in Texas, this is a generous $20,000). Small claims courts have a lower burden of proof and Bob can use Alan as a witness.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 970, "original_index": 92, "chunk_index": 6}, "distance": 0.698710024356842, "relevance_score": 0.30128997564315796}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/canada\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-canada-tooltip-container\">canada</a></p>\n<h3>Charging decisions are at the core of prosecutorial discretion and cannot be challenged for the reason you posit</h3>\n<p>A criminal indictment or the decision to charge <strong>cannot be challenged</strong> on the basis that the prosecutors did not possess evidence proving the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a matter left to the conclusion of the trial.</p>\n<p>The decision to bring a charge is at the core of prosecutorial discretion. See <a href=\"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc34/2011scc34.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>R. v. Nixon</em>, 2011 SCC 34, para. 21</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "original_index": 38, "content_length": 861, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.698886513710022, "relevance_score": 0.301113486289978}, {"content": "<p>Also, keep in mind that a lawful search requires only probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and a good faith belief that an exception to the warrant requirement is present.</p>\n<p>If the law enforcement officer has a good faith belief that the animal will die or seriously suffer or be hidden by the owner in the time that the law enforcement officer reasonably thinks that it will take to get a warrant, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies.</p>\n<p>The fact that the lawful search later reveals that a crime was no committed does not mean that the search was improper. A mere belief that an animal was abused or neglected and that exigent circumstance were present with a reasonable factual basis (e.g. a tip from a neighbor who seems credible and claims to have personal knowledge of the facts) will usually suffice to establish probable cause.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>So warrant needed or not? and if so, what legal action can be taken", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 212, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 8, "content_length": 986}, "distance": 0.6989830732345581, "relevance_score": 0.3010169267654419}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>The substantive elements of self-defence and defence of another are described two other Q&amp;As, so I will only state them briefly: (a) reasonable belief of a threat of force; (b) the act constituting the offence is for the purpose of protection; (c) the act committed is reasonable.</p>\n<p>For details see:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/90856/is-it-legal-to-use-force-against-a-person-who-is-trying-to-stop-you-from-rescuin\">Is it legal to use force against a person who is trying to stop you from rescuing another person?</a></li>\n<li><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87377/is-self-defense-allowed-when-there-are-objectively-reasonable-grounds-but-it-is/87387#87387\">Is self-defense allowed when there are objectively reasonable grounds but it is actually done subjectively for improper reasons?</a></li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"original_index": 277, "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 878, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6991461515426636, "relevance_score": 0.3008538484573364}, {"content": "Question Title: Typo in disclaimer - worst case scenario\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I've noticed a typo on an investment company's disclaimer in a brochure, to the effect:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>This company and its research affiliate June continue to have such\ndealings and June also have other ongoing business dealings with other\nfirms whose products are included herein.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Clearly some one replaced all instances of &quot;may&quot; and replaced with &quot;June.&quot;</p>\n<h2>Question</h2>\n<p>In the event that anything relating to this disclaimer does make its way all the way to court, what would the implications be? Would this be insufficient to cover the legal liability it was originally written to, given that it's now effectively garbled and ambiguous?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 776, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 19}, "distance": 0.6992813944816589, "relevance_score": 0.30071860551834106}, {"content": "<p>Written consent is usually only needed for trips that:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>need a higher level of risk assessment</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>are outside normal school hours</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-safety-on-educational-visits/health-and-safety-on-educational-visits#when-to-get-consent-from-parents\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Source</a></p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 392, "original_index": 15, "chunk_index": 6, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6993727684020996, "relevance_score": 0.3006272315979004}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>In the United States, this would be a form of unfair competition. The law treats things that behave like property as if they were property. Early knowledge of news, gathered at great effort and expense, behaves like property and so courts treat it like property. If you use the property of another to harm them, courts may fashion equitable remedies.</p>\n<p>See the Supreme Court's ruling in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) for a case of precisely this:</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 506, "original_index": 141}, "distance": 0.6994946599006653, "relevance_score": 0.3005053400993347}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n  <p>The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the\n  hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of\n  members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be\n  discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the\n  procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines, or\n  the provisions of section 6 below are satisfied.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>Firing on the basis of belief that a set of individuals has a protected characteristic obviously has an adverse impact on the protected class, and is accordingly prohibited, even when one or more individuals is not in the protected class.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 282, "content_length": 683, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6995574831962585, "relevance_score": 0.30044251680374146}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>I don\u2019t think anyone anticipated that the \u201cprior art\u201d could have been created by illegal means. Something simpler, you printed a description of your invention and locked it into a safe. I crack the safe and publish that description.</p>\n<p>IF this counts as prior art (a big if), and you can\u2019t get the patent, and you lose money due to my illegal actions, then you can sue me for the damages.</p>\n\n\nTags: patents", "metadata": {"original_index": 119, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 425, "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6996920108795166, "relevance_score": 0.3003079891204834}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>[Loengard said,] \u201c \u2026 Copyright is not a legal or illegal sanction of the activity that was done to produce the work. Copyright is a separate entity.\u201d</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Another case settled out of court is that of Joseph &quot;Rime&quot; Tierney and Moschino. Tierney sued Moschino for using his art on its designs. One day before the court was notified of the intention to settle, Moschino sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that unlawfully made art could not be copyrighted. (<a href=\"https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2016/04/22/graffiti-artist-to-settle-legal-case-against-moschino\" rel=\"noreferrer\">News source</a>)</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&quot;As a matter of public policy and basic logic, it would make no sense to grant legal protection to work that is created entirely illegally.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 93, "content_length": 853, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.6998128294944763, "relevance_score": 0.3001871705055237}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>It is not clear from a brief reading whether any of this imposes a duty to negotiate anyone's release under any circumstances.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 147, "chunk_index": 9, "original_index": 181, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6998226642608643, "relevance_score": 0.30017733573913574}, {"content": "<p>In Notwehr, one may under no condition risk the harm or death of <strong>any</strong> person besides the pilot, even <strong>if</strong> they find a way to somehow kill the pilot in self-defense, and you only may use proportional force to the threat. That excessive risk by the wreck of the airplane or killing the passengers can all be treated as separate charges of reckless endangerment or murder (as death was taken willingly into account). In Germany, self-defense does <strong>not</strong> allow Bob to harm or kill those others, and threatening them with his illegal backyard stinger, in turn, allows anybody to defend the passengers by shooting Bob first.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 670, "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 277, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.6999714970588684, "relevance_score": 0.3000285029411316}, {"content": "<h2>Bob is also civilly liable</h2>\n<p>He had faulty conduct (committed a crime), others suffered damage (deaths by fire, material damage to the factory), and there is a clear causal link between the two.</p>\n<p>Bob\u2019s lawyer might argue to reduce the fraction of damages that Bob is responsible for. After all, the damages only occurred because there was a fire, of which Bob is not responsible. Carol the worker, who started the fire, is responsible at least in part (either as a representative of the company if she acted within her work duties, or personally if she failed to comply with her employer\u2019s safety instructions). Dave the director potentially failed to promptly call the firemen (or establish safety procedures that would have allowed to do so), or skimped on fire retardant materials. If any of those can be criminally charged, there would usually be a joint trial, and the court will decide on a split of responsibility.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 941, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 274}, "distance": 0.7001428008079529, "relevance_score": 0.2998571991920471}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>Just because I believe I\u2019m guilty doesn\u2019t mean I am</h2>\n<p>All crimes contain elements, each of which must be true for someone to be guilty. Yes, I shot the victim, yes, I intended to kill him, yes, he\u2019s now dead, yes, I believe I\u2019m guilty. But if he died in his sleep just before I pulled the trigger, I\u2019m not.</p>\n<h2>Confessions can be lies</h2>\n<p>I know it might shock you, but people are not always telling the truth when they confess to a crime. There are various reasons why someone might do this: mistaken belief, protecting someone else, status etc. Grotesque as it is, in the Emmett Till case, the acquitted men would have received a great deal of status in their community if they had committed the crime - that could be enough incentive for them to falsely confess.</p>\n<h2>Conflicting objects of the legal system</h2>\n<p>Justice is only <em>one</em> of the purposes of our legal system. Others include efficiency and finality.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 959, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 197, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.7002446055412292, "relevance_score": 0.29975539445877075}, {"content": "<p>The key issue distinguishing these two rulings is the question of whether the police power exception to the eminent domain obligation of a government applies to cases in which the person whose property is taken is innocent of any wrongdoing and any legally relevant connection to a wrongdoer. Both circuits would agree that a government does not have eminent domain liability under the constitution if, for example, the property destroyed belongs to someone who committed a crime and has their house destroyed in the process of trying to arrest the criminal.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 565, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 110, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5}, "distance": 0.7006216049194336, "relevance_score": 0.2993783950805664}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>A jury is charged with finding <em>fact</em>, and is supposed to take the law as given to them by a judge.</p>\n\n<p>\"Jury nullification\" occurs when a jury bends the law to produce a desired result. This was made possible by English common law, which gave juries great latitude in determining what they would rule on. The underlying power may go all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215.</p>\n\n<p>One example occurred in \"Dickensian\" England where theft of an item value at one shilling (twelve pence) or greater carried the death penalty. In order to spare a young defendant this fate, the jury valued a diamond necklace at only 11 pence.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 657, "original_index": 89, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.7006890773773193, "relevance_score": 0.29931092262268066}, {"content": "<p>Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior.</p>\n<p>I was discussing the issue with a friend, and I suggested that since police enforcement is very weak in the neighborhood, if it would be a possibility to just put a price on the &quot;job of enforcing the law&quot;. Essentially, you walk up to a random police officer and say: &quot;I'll give you 10k USD to do your job. That is, to go to this particular place, and observe the infractions occurring due to this nuisance neighbor, and do whatever the law prescribes you to do when you catch someone doing something illegal&quot;.</p>\n<p><strong>Is offering the officer 10k to &quot;do his job&quot; an illegal act?</strong></p>\n<p><strong>Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)?</strong></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "content_length": 922, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.7007991075515747, "relevance_score": 0.2992008924484253}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>According to <a href=\"http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/lawbod/2018/05/31/law-french-when-law-and-language-collide/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">the Law Bod's Blog, Law French \u2013 When Law and Language Collide</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... After 1066 French became the language of the elite. During the reign of Edward I the first statute was written in French and Law was professionalised<a href=\"http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/lawbod/2018/05/31/law-french-when-law-and-language-collide/\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">1</a>. This led to the development of a weird little dialect called law French.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As you can see from the image below law French is a bizarre mix of French, Latin, Anglo-Saxon and whatever other languages happened to be hanging around. ...</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 796, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 131, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7009468078613281, "relevance_score": 0.2990531921386719}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Let's say you live in a house and have a neighbor who is a nuisance. The neighbor does various illegal things on a regular basis (car is extremely noisy above and beyond what is allowed in the law, loud music in the middle of the night that can be heard from the inside of neighbors homes, pool on roof seemingly without sanitation controls, burning trash on the sidewalk, etc, etc).</p>\n<p>Basically, a neighbor who all the other neighbors despise, but no one does anything because the nuisance neighbor would probably only increase his disrespectful behavior.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 583}, "distance": 0.7009698152542114, "relevance_score": 0.2990301847457886}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>The police legally cannot arrest a person for having guests. They can come to the house to talk to the owner, or others who are there. They can arrest a person if they have probable cause that a crime was committed or is being committed, such as murder or disturbing the peace. </p>\n\n<p>Suppose that owner A habitually invites over guests who disturb the peace. Someone could file a complaint requesting that A be enjoined from having more that 3 guests, or something like that, aimed at stopping the noise that accompanies these visits. The court might then issue a temporary restraining order or a permanent injunction for some cause. Were there such an injunction, violating it is a crime, and A could be arrested. The police cannot, however, \"take the law into their hands\" and issue an injunction \u2013 that comes from a court.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 218, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 845, "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.7010040283203125, "relevance_score": 0.2989959716796875}, {"content": "<p>d) what would happen if the President refused to do so?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The judge could hold the President in contempt of court, which is punishable by fines and/or incarceration.</p>\n<p>But a more likely outcome, tailored to minimize interference with government business, is that the Court would sanction a President who defied an order to testify by assuming as a matter of law that any testimony from the President would have been unfavorable to the President and make a conclusive adverse inference on the evidentiary issues about which the President was asked to testify against the President.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 103, "chunk_index": 5, "content_length": 611}, "distance": 0.7010549306869507, "relevance_score": 0.2989450693130493}, {"content": "<p>The employer of the law enforcement officer can be sued as well, under the same statute, if the warrantless search in violation of the clearly established constitutional right was made pursuant to an express policy of the law enforcement officer's employer. But the fact that the law enforcement officer violated someone's rights does not automatically make the law enforcement officer's employer civilly liable for the wrong.</p>\n<p>In most U.S. states, law enforcement officers are protected by state law governmental immunity from common law trespass lawsuits for their conduct while carrying out their official duties, but I haven't checked specifically to see if that is the case in Missouri.</p>\n<p>A claim of a 4th Amendment violation can also be a ground for suppressing evidence obtained with an unlawful search when defending a prosecution under some ordinance or statute that relies upon that evidence.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 920, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10, "original_index": 212}, "distance": 0.7010814547538757, "relevance_score": 0.29891854524612427}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<p>(1) A person who participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence.</p>\n<p>(2) For this purpose, a person participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person takes part in any activities that the person knows or reasonably suspects\u2014</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a) are criminal activities of an organised crime group, or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b) <strong>will help an organised crime group to carry on criminal activities</strong></p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>\n<p><strong>HOWEVER</strong> it seems unlikely that &quot;<em>donations to help them afford the legal costs they face after their actions</em>&quot; would meet the emboldened requirements at subsection 2(b) as it does not appear to be supporting &quot;criminal activities.&quot; That said, each case will be considered on its own merits.</p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong>Retrospective legislation</strong></li>\n</ol>", "metadata": {"original_index": 113, "content_length": 940, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.7010966539382935, "relevance_score": 0.29890334606170654}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>It seems to not be allowed for a UK police to lie.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984</a> makes it illegal for the police to mislead a suspect in order to make them believe that the police have evidence which they do not or that the evidence they have is stronger than it is, or that there is a possibility of leniency (for example in return for \u2018cooperation\u2019) where none exists.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Realistically, there is no reason that a police officer might lie to a suspect during interview.</p>\n<p>Also see from <a href=\"https://innocenceproject.org/news/how-the-uk-police-interview-suspects/#:%7E:text=The%20law%20does%20not%20allow,do%E2%80%94I%20get%20more%20information.\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">innocenceproject.org</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The law does not allow lying to suspects, under any circumstances.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 969, "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 66, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7012590765953064, "relevance_score": 0.2987409234046936}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>For awareness, a person deemed insane in this way is not necessarily &quot;<em>committed to a mental institution indefinitely.</em>&quot;</p>\n<p>Instead, sentencing is determined on a case-by-case basis under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/84/section/5?timeline=false\" rel=\"noreferrer\">section 5(2)</a>, Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><strong>5 Powers to deal with persons not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead\u00a0etc.</strong></p>\n<p>...</p>\n<p>(2) The court shall make in respect of the accused\u2014</p>\n<ul>\n<li><p>(a) a hospital order (with or without a restriction order);</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(b) a supervision order; or</p>\n</li>\n<li><p>(c) an order for his absolute discharge.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 37, "content_length": 781, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 10}, "distance": 0.7014345526695251, "relevance_score": 0.29856544733047485}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>If the seller of a company signed an NDA, that NDA would make it illegal <em>for them</em> to tell you whatever the NDA covers (except there may be legal requirements that would override an NDA).</p>\n<p>That doesn't mean you cannot find out in any other legal way. For example, the company's accountant most likely knows a lot of things, and if they didn't sign an NDA, they may be free to tell you. Obviously the government will know things, as you said, the company had to be registered, the sale had to be registered, and you can't just close a company down and make it disappear. Especially since any obligations of the company will continue to exist for many years.</p>\n<p>Say the company in question bought office furniture from you and was supposed to pay in 60 monthly installments. Selling the company doesn't stop that, closing the company down won't stop that, signing an NDA won't stop that. You will still be able to find the company and make them pay.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 208, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 982, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.7015084624290466, "relevance_score": 0.29849153757095337}, {"content": "Question Title: False discrimination\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Most countries have some law that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a member of some protected class. But what happens if A believes wrongly that B belongs to some protected class and discriminates against B?</p>\n<p>For example: Say in the USA the new owner of a company fires all male gay employees. He also fires Bob, who he thinks is gay, but who actually isn't. Would Bob be protected by anti-discrimination laws?</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 509, "original_index": 282, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7015752196311951, "relevance_score": 0.29842478036880493}, {"content": "(Ont.), c. 51 ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The Ontario Court of Appeal quoted from <em>Clavet v. Tomkies et al.</em>, [1963] 3 All E.R. 610 (Lord Denning) (emphasis mine):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>All I would say is that, as I read s. 3 of the Defamation Act, 1952, <strong>it gives a benefit to a plaintiff in that it is not necessary to plead or prove special damage if the words are calculated to cause pecuniary damage</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This means that special damages (actual and provable pecuniary losses up to the date of trial) need not be proven nor even pleaded if the words <em>are calculated</em> (meaning <em>intended</em> to) cause pecuniary damage (which might have not yet occurred, but might be proven as likely future damages at trial).</p>\n<p><em>Brown on Defamation</em> confirms that generally:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 54, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 836, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.70157790184021, "relevance_score": 0.29842209815979004}, {"content": "<ul>\n<li><p>Flying within Class G airspace (max 400 ft.) over private property without permission is trespassing (min 500 ft.) </p></li>\n<li><p>A 107 certified pilot is not restricted to 400 ft., and may have a BVLOS waiver. (It can be difficult to assess whether a drone is above 500 feet.)</p></li>\n<li><p>In the US, it is a violation of federal criminal law to instigate <em>any</em> attack intended to interfere with the flightworthiness of a craft currently in flight. The penalties for doing so or attempting to do so are severe (especially if the attack involved ballistics, such as shooting at it with a firearm.)  Throwing anything at all - a rock, your shoes, <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnjlyZf6LE\" rel=\"noreferrer\">a spear</a>, a towel, your shirt, etc. <strong><em>intended to  deliberately cause a flying craft to free-fall.</em></strong></p></li>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 34, "content_length": 875, "chunk_index": 8}, "distance": 0.7015790939331055, "relevance_score": 0.29842090606689453}, {"content": "Question Title: Are there examples of companies suing regulators for selective enforcement?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>My hypothetical scenario is roughly like this:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Company A has product X in circulation</li>\n<li>The relevant regulator, after scrutinizing X, issues a ban and/or fines company A for their product X</li>\n<li>Company A claims that their competitor, company B, has a product Y that is very similar to their own product X, which (Y) has nevertheless not gone into any scrutiny by the regulator, and it remains in circulation</li>\n<li>Hence, company A sues the regulator for unfair selective enforcement against their competitor, company B</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Are there any such examples, or even legal provisions for such cases?</p>\n<p>I am particularly interested in the US, but any examples or legal provisions from a state with a market-based economy (G7, EU, Australia, New Zealand etc) would suffice.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 922, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 239}, "distance": 0.7017785906791687, "relevance_score": 0.2982214093208313}, {"content": "<p><strong>Is this conceptually equivalent to offering an officer money to not do his job (a bribe)?</strong></p>\n<p><strong>Is offering the officer the money to perform his job considered a bribe?</strong></p>\n<p>As another example. If your house is being robbed this very instant, and you know it, is it illegal to go to a police officer and say: &quot;my house is being robbed, I'll pay you 10k USD to go to my house and do your job&quot;?</p>\n<p><strong>Is it immoral or unethical from either party (the payer or the police officer taking the payment)?</strong></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 569, "original_index": 225, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7023276090621948, "relevance_score": 0.2976723909378052}, {"content": "<p><strong>Permissable restrictions</strong></p>\n<p><em>Derogation</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression 'in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed'.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><em>Limitation</em></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>[U]nder article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation necessary to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 16, "original_index": 184, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 838}, "distance": 0.7030371427536011, "relevance_score": 0.2969628572463989}, {"content": "<p>An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place.</p>\n<p>[<em>edited for ease of reading</em>]</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. <a href=\"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source: CPS, Public Order Offences</a></p>\n<p><strong>FOR GENERAL INTEREST AND AWARENESS</strong>:</p>\n<p>There are a number of <em>potentially</em> related offences that I have discounted for the reasons shown:</p>\n<ul>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 736, "original_index": 120}, "distance": 0.703082799911499, "relevance_score": 0.296917200088501}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>New Hampshire has published restrictions for persons on probation:  <a href=\"https://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/victim/pandp_offender.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/divisions/victim/pandp_offender.html</a></p>\n<p>These restriction include agreeing to searches by the Probation-Parole Officer (&quot;PPO&quot;), but do not mention identification to a general peace officer.  New Hampshire law allows the police to request the identity of person the officer has reason to suspect is committing or may be about to commit a crime (this is less of a standard than probable cause).  Failure to identify is a crime, and a subsequent arrest would require notification of the PPO, though the requirements above state that the PPO must be notified of even mere questioning by a law enforcement officer.  The identification requirement applies to everyone.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 888, "original_index": 263, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7031944394111633, "relevance_score": 0.29680556058883667}, {"content": "<p>Also, just because a state can authorize law enforcement to get a warrant for any search authorized by the U.S. Constitution, that doesn't mean it has to allow law enforcement to do so in every case where it is constitutional for the state to do so.</p>\n<p>The duty to get a warrant for law enforcement to enter onto private property at all arises not only from other state statutes, but also from the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as incorporated to apply against state and local governments though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).</p>\n<p>But, the constitutional requirement has case law exceptions, so it isn't required in all circumstances. In particular, exigent circumstances, and the consent to entry exceptions, which are allowed by constitutional criminal procedure case law, could apply to the requirement to get a warrant in the first place.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 212, "chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 907, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.703513503074646, "relevance_score": 0.296486496925354}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>The first and most important of the 3 conditions for a binding contract (mutual understanding and agreement to the terms, exchange of value, not criminal) prevents a binding contract from being forced on someone.</p>\n<p>Signing and everything else is secondary, Mr Poop could sign a paper contract with the same terms, in front of the President, both Houses, and all 9 justices, and as long as it was clear that he didn\u2019t mean it, all the paper would be is souvenir autograph, not a binding contract.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, contract-law", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 553, "original_index": 116}, "distance": 0.703568696975708, "relevance_score": 0.296431303024292}, {"content": "<blockquote>\n<ol start=\"3\">\n<li>Criminal history score. Points are assigned based on an offender\u2019s criminal history points, taken from the judgment\u2019s statement of\nreasons or, if not found there, from the PSR. Scoring does not factor\nin whether the court found a defendant\u2019s points over \u2013 or\nunderrepresent criminal history.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This ranges from 0-10 based upon the criminal history score assigned at sentencing. If it is absent the BOP will (per the rule linked above):</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>(a)Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one\nyear and one month;</p>\n<p>(b)Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least\nsixty days not counted in (a);</p>\n<p>(c)Add 1 point for each prior conviction not counted in (a) or (b), up\nto a total of 4 points for this item; and,</p>\n<p>(d)Add 2 points if the instant offense is a revocation accompanied by\na new state or federal conviction, or if the instant offense occurred", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "original_index": 108, "content_length": 977}, "distance": 0.7036253213882446, "relevance_score": 0.29637467861175537}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Working a mobile car cleaner now, my manager asked me to take some\npictures before cleaning and after clearing, privacy issue of the car\nowner</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>California law creates an expectation of consent for taking photographs of people for purposes of commercial distribution of the image to the public. <a href=\"https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344.html?/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">California Civil Code \u00a7 3344</a>.</p>\n<p>But, absent copyright or design patent issues (which would only very rarely come up since most people don't own the copyrights or patents to the designs of their cars, and the owner of the copyrights generally grants an implied license for the owners of the cars to display the copyrighted or patented designs), there is no parallel requirement of consent for taking photographs of things.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 147, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 862}, "distance": 0.7037561535835266, "relevance_score": 0.2962438464164734}, {"content": "connect the suspect to the crime, the police officer falsely told the\ndefendant and his solicitor that they had found the suspect's\nfingerprints at the scene of the crime. 201 After being presented with\nthis false evidence during his interrogation, the defendant confessed\nto the crime. 202 The Court of Appeal held that the deceit perpetrated\non the defendant and his solicitor was reprehensible and impacted\nthe fairness of the trial. 203 As the confession was the only definitive\nevidence linking the defendant to the crime, the conviction was\noverturned.204<br />\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0  \u00a0 \u00a0 Although express deception by the police during the\ninterrogation of a suspect is generally prohibited in England, the\ncourts have found that some types of police deception do not warrant\nthe exclusion of confession evidence.205 For example, the English\n&quot;courts have exhibited a considerable degree of tolerance of\nsurreptitious tape-recording by ... the police.&quot;206 In Bailey, the police", "metadata": {"original_index": 66, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 977, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 11}, "distance": 0.7040322422981262, "relevance_score": 0.2959677577018738}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The Sixth Amendment is very specific: &quot;[T]he accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy[...] trial.&quot; There is no such constitutional right given to the prosecution, and such a right would not serve the public interest. Defendants very often waive their right to a speedy trial in order to have more time to prepare a defense.</p>\n<p>Conversely, however, the defendant does not have the right to draw out the proceedings indefinitely. When the right to a speedy trial is waived, it falls to the court (that is, the judge) to schedule the proceedings at its discretion. It may choose to take into account the wishes of the prosecution or the defense or both, but is not required to do so.</p>\n\n\nTags: united-states, sixth-amendment", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 751, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 82, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7041587829589844, "relevance_score": 0.2958412170410156}, {"content": "<p>The first element would be that the person was born in West Virginia. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt exists, and is in the possession of the prosecutor, no doubt the person's lawyer could find a way to compel the state to perform the necessary registration on the basis of the evidence the state already possesses, and the case becomes moot.</p>\n<p>Another element that is likely to be in the law is that the person knows he/she was born in West Virginia. But if there isn't enough evidence to complete the registration process, the person could argue that he/she does not know if he/she were born in West Virginia.</p>\n<p>If the person works, it is likely the person will appear to violate tax laws, because even if income taxes are withheld from wages, with no SSN to connect the person to the money that was withheld, it will appear the person failed to pay taxes.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 22, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 878, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7043308615684509, "relevance_score": 0.2956691384315491}, {"content": "<p>I will note that in practice, it is vanishingly unlikely that the copyright holder would ever learn of your isolated instance of limited infringement in the first place (especially since it's out of print), much less bring legal action against you for making a single copy that did not affect their bottom line.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 273, "content_length": 318, "chunk_index": 4}, "distance": 0.7043715715408325, "relevance_score": 0.2956284284591675}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>Further to @Daxelarne's accurate <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/94532/35069\">answer</a></p>\n<p>An undercover officer (UCO), authorised under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/29?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 29</a> Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), by the very nature of the role can lie - but only insofar as to create what's called a &quot;<em>personal or other relationship</em>&quot; (i.e. a covert relationship).</p>\n<p>Although a UCO may have additional authority for &quot;<em>criminal conduct</em>&quot; under <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/29B?timeline=false\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">section 29B</a> they cannot, for example, lie to entrap a suspect in to committing a crime they would not otherwise do.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 838, "original_index": 66}, "distance": 0.7044001817703247, "relevance_score": 0.2955998182296753}, {"content": "Question Title: What constitutes entrapment?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>I was just remembering a movie scene where 2 undercover cops knock on a man's door asking to buy drugs and and he sells it to them. In the end he is arrested and convicted. I'm no expert but I thought entrapment usually occurred when the illegal activity it pushed or initiated by the law enforcement offer so would this situation be entrapment?\nOn a broader note, I know the often fine line between entrapment and a legal sting operations is widely debated to what, fundamentally, distinguishes a legitimate sting from unfair entrapment?</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 606, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 106, "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.7044588327407837, "relevance_score": 0.2955411672592163}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Now the party in question is threatening to sue (but of course refuses to point to which sections he believes are libelous) ... do we have to pay the $$ to &quot;lawyer up&quot; if we want to be safe?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If you get sued, you will definitely want a lawyer.  If you don't get sued, well, in that case you're safe.  So your first question is whether the supposedly aggrieved party will actually sue.  Your second question is, <em>if</em> they sue, do they have a good case?  That question will be useful in deciding whether to settle.</p>\n<p>If the threats are empty then you might want to hire a lawyer to call their bluff.\nOtherwise you may have to endure the continual empty threats.  This is especially true if the libel case is weak.  Your lawyer can write a letter that explains why there is no case.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 36, "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 851}, "distance": 0.7044953107833862, "relevance_score": 0.29550468921661377}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2219668728892189742&amp;q=332%20F.3d%20199&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Fighting words claim not upheld</a>:\nDetainee's profane words to police officer as officer conducted Terry stop, \u201cson of a bitch,\u201d while unpleasant and insulting, were not \u201cfighting words,\u201d given officer's confirmation of fact that words did not cause anyone to fight or become angry; thus, words could not constitute violation of disorderly conduct statute and in turn could not supply probable cause for disorderly conduct arrest.</p>\n\n<p>In addition to fighting words, true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action are not protected under the First Amendment.</p>\n\n<p>Additionally, the government can regulate free speech in public schools (hence <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Free Speech Zones</a>) and while in their employ (no yelling at your boss if you want to keep your job). </p>\n\n<hr>", "metadata": {"content_length": 992, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 193, "chunk_index": 5, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7045061588287354, "relevance_score": 0.29549384117126465}, {"content": "Question Title: What is the disposal of premises?\n\nQuestion Body: <p><a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/4\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Part 4</a> Equality Act 2010 makes extensive references to the disposal of premises. What specifically does this concern?</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 282, "original_index": 144, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0}, "distance": 0.7045568823814392, "relevance_score": 0.2954431176185608}, {"content": "Question Title: Is it illegal for websites to host children fighting with the purpose of humiliation\n\nQuestion Body: <p>A video recently came to my attention that involved two children ages approximately 5,and 6, or so and the video consisted of the boy and girl wrestling - but not in a fair competition, but to humiliate the little boy. He was called a sissy and similar derogatory terms, and it was posted on a website that hosts some adult/pornographic content as well as discussion groups/forums.  There was no question about the intent of the video because the voice-overs flat out said it was to show the little boy what a worthless sissy he was. Obviously, this can be emotionally dangerous to a first or even second grade child who is just realizing the reality of societal definitions of masculinity/femininity. And I have another aspect to consider. What can happen legally to the promoters/parents for promoting and distributing on the internet</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 237, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 960}, "distance": 0.7045637369155884, "relevance_score": 0.2954362630844116}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I was researching how lawyers, courts distinguish cases and I came across this article: <a href=\"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/index.html#PreLayDowRul\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/index.html#PreLayDowRul</a>. It says that cases can be distinguished by a later court based on the following constraints:</p>\n<p>(1) in formulating the ratio of the later case, the factors in the ratio of the earlier case must be retained, and (2) the ruling in the later case must be such that it would still support the result reached in the precedent case.</p>\n<p>It also says that cases can be distinguished &quot;even though those facts do not feature in the ratio of the earlier case.&quot;</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 768, "original_index": 226}, "distance": 0.7045853137969971, "relevance_score": 0.29541468620300293}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<h3>Crown prosecution offices <em>do</em> consider the likelihood of conviction when deciding whether to charge</h3>\n<p>Provinces each have their own charging policies, but British Columbia's is a typical example. A charge will generally not be brought unless there is a substantial likelihood of conviction and the public interest requires a prosecution (see <a href=\"https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/cha-1-charge-assessment-guidelines.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Crown Charge Assessment Guidelines</a>). In exceptional cases, charges may be approved on a lesser standard of &quot;a reasonable prospect of conviction.&quot; In making these assessments, prosecutors need not be themselves convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but are directed to <em>consider</em> the &quot;prosecution\u2019s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.&quot;</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 945, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 38, "chunk_index": 12}, "distance": 0.7045886516571045, "relevance_score": 0.2954113483428955}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>Copyright law doesn't say the art isn't copyrighted if it was made unlawfully.</p>\n<p>It seems the art can be copyrighted and the act of making it can be a criminal offence.</p>\n<p>I'm not aware of any such copyright cases that have gone to trial.</p>\n<p>A fairly well known case that settled out of court is that of Jason \u201cRevok\u201d Williams and H&amp;M.</p>\n<p>Williams noticed his art in a photograph used in an H&amp;M marketing campaign. His lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to H&amp;M.</p>\n<p>In response, H&amp;M applied for a court order stating that the product of an unlawful act could not be copyrighted.</p>\n<p>Following some bad publicity H&amp;M relented and settled with Williams. H&amp;M stopped using the photograph and withdrew the application for the court order. (<a href=\"https://www.seattletimes.com/business/hms-battle-over-graffiti-fuels-debate-over-street-artists-copyright-privileges/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">News source</a>)</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 977, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "original_index": 93}, "distance": 0.7049270868301392, "relevance_score": 0.29507291316986084}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>There is a police power exception to the 5th and 14th Amendment rights to not taking property without due process of law and just compensation.</p>\n<p>In a <a href=\"https://www.denverpost.com/2020/03/11/colorado-swat-house-destroyed-supreme-court/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">similar case arising in Greenwood Village, Colorado</a>, an innocent homeowner was denied any relief at trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, or on appeal to the 10th Circuit, after his house was trashed by SWAT teams trying to catch a guy accused of mere theft and fleeing police officers. (The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case sometime after the linked article was written.)</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 698, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 2, "original_index": 110}, "distance": 0.7049323320388794, "relevance_score": 0.2950676679611206}, {"content": "<p>Therefore, the Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction in <em>Edlind</em> even where the defendant explicitly told the victim to tell the truth:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Edlind's statements can be seen as attempts to confuse Kwiatkowski as to what was real and what was Chujoy's odd sense of humor. By confusing Kwiatkowski, Edlind sought to undermine his ability to testify persuasively against Chujoy in the <em>Inca's Secret</em> case. Coupled with the circumstantial evidence implicating Edlind -- the timing of events following Chujoy's June 3 letter and Edlind's constant attempts at avoiding governmental surveillance -- there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for witness tampering. The jury was free to reject Edlind's statement to &quot;tell the truth&quot; as a shallow attempt to immunize herself from prosecution.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"original_index": 65, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 854}, "distance": 0.7051070332527161, "relevance_score": 0.29489296674728394}, {"content": "<p>While Prior Restraint (Government action that prohibits speech or expression prior to it being made) is allowed in the U.S., it is under very limited circumstances that the publication of such information would &quot;would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate danger to the United States.&quot; (<a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Source</a>) As such, it's very rarely granted or enforced in modern U.S. Law.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 201, "content_length": 467, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.7054527997970581, "relevance_score": 0.2945472002029419}, {"content": "<p>In England and Wales if you are involved in a collision which causes damage to property you must stop and give your details to anyone reasonably requiring them, and if nobody does, you must report it to the police &quot;as soon as is reasonably practicable&quot;, and in any case within 24 hours (s170, Road Traffic Act 1988).  Ted's failure to do so constitutes an offence, so a private prosecution could be brought if the police wouldn't investigate, or the CPS declined to proceed.</p>\n<p>I note you don't specify the jurisdiction you're asking about, though I infer it's Texas, USA; but I thought it worth noting the option exists in some places, and may exist for Bob.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 92, "chunk_index": 9, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 680, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7055039405822754, "relevance_score": 0.2944960594177246}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>1</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/australia\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-australia-tooltip-container\">australia</a></p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>To be defamatory, the material has to be published (communicated by any means, including written, orally, pictorially) <strong>to at least one person</strong> other than the person making the claim.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.artslaw.com.au/information-sheet/defamation-law/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Arts Law Information Sheet</a></p>\n<p>Whether disclosure to one person can cause real harm depends on what is told and to whom. A lie to a (prospective) employer, University admissions officer, or security service vetting agent could be very damaging.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 173, "content_length": 841}, "distance": 0.7058678865432739, "relevance_score": 0.2941321134567261}, {"content": "Question Title: Who has ultimate responsibility for a child injured on a school trip?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>A school is going on an excursion. The child is given the permission slip to take home and get signed by his legal guardian, but he forges the signature instead. On the excursion, he gets injured. Who is legally responsible for the child? Is it the school (since the waiver is void, and by default the school is responsible for the child when a roll is taken) or the parent (since the school sincerely thought the parent had signed the waiver and if the waiver was correctly signed then the parent would be responsible)?</p>\n<p>Preferred jurisdiction Australia; I will accept any answer however.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 15, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 704, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7059785723686218, "relevance_score": 0.2940214276313782}, {"content": "<p><em>Burdick</em> does stand for the proposition that a pardon not solicited by the defendant, that is rejected, cannot provide a basis for removing the 5th Amendment protection with respect to a risk of conviction for federal crime.</p>\n<p>I would also be inclined to think that matters disclosed in an application for a pardon might be admissible evidence as a non-hearsay statement of a party-opponent, if the statement was stripped of the pardon application context (which would be unduly prejudicial since it would imply a prior conviction which otherwise wouldn't be admissible).</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 276, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 591, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 9}, "distance": 0.7063559293746948, "relevance_score": 0.2936440706253052}, {"content": "Question Title: Is paying a police officer to do something legal that is in theory part of their job, but isn&#39;t being done, illegal?", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 225, "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 136}, "distance": 0.7067023515701294, "relevance_score": 0.2932976484298706}, {"content": "<p>(c)\u00a0the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>&quot;Unless the accused subjectively believed that force or a threat thereof was being used against their person or that of another, the defence is unavailable&quot; (<em>R. v. Khill</em>, <a href=\"https://canlii.ca/t/jjlbr#par52\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">2021 SCC 37, para. 52</a>). Such belief must also be based on reasonable grounds. They must also act <em>with the subjective purpose</em> of protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force. There is also the final balance of reasonableness of the response, but I don't take you to be putting that into question.</p>\n<p><strong>As long as these are satisfied, then the defence is made out.</strong> And you haven't given enough information to know whether these elements are present.</p>\n<h3>Your scenario only presents evidential uncertainty</h3>", "metadata": {"original_index": 9, "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 913, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7067077159881592, "relevance_score": 0.2932922840118408}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p><a href=\"http://blogs.denverpost.com/crime/2011/06/13/the-f-bomb-isnt-polite-or-illegal/48/\" rel=\"noreferrer\">Denver lawyer David Lane has said</a>, \u201cThe First Amendment lives in a rough neighborhood and if you can\u2019t stand the neighborhood move to China \u2026 or somewhere the First Amendment does not exist.\u201d</p>\n\n<p>\"One man's vulgarity is another's lyric.\" <a href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7398433541275578772&amp;q=Cohen%20v.%20Cali&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,37#p25\" rel=\"noreferrer\"><em>Cohen v. Cali.</em> 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971)</a></p>\n\n<p>At this point, we need to define illegal as used in your question. For instance, do you mean \"you can face any form of punishment\"? If so, this question is extremely broad and governed by multiple sets of laws. </p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 193, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 789}, "distance": 0.7067230343818665, "relevance_score": 0.29327696561813354}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2>The signed document is almost certainly a contract</h2>\n<p>See <a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6263/what-is-a-contract-and-what-is-required-for-them-to-be-valid\">What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?</a></p>\n<p>It contains all the required elements:</p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Intention to create legal relations.</strong> There is no doubt that the parties intended that this agreement would end their previous employment contract.</li>\n<li><strong>Agreement.</strong> Obviously.</li>\n<li><strong>Consideration.</strong> By making this particular agreement both parties are giving up rights that they had under the employment contract and at law, that is sufficuient consideration.</li>\n<li><strong>Legal Capacity.</strong> Assuming they had capacity to enter the original employment contract they probably have it now. Unless one of them was drunk. Or insane.</li>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "content_length": 915, "original_index": 88, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7067938446998596, "relevance_score": 0.2932061553001404}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>As discussed in the article linked in comments by @Michael Hall the nurse in question informs the police officer that they hospital policy is to not draw blood without consent, unless there is a warrant signed by a judge, or the police have arrested the patient in question. As such, when the police bring a DUI suspect in for a blood test for alcohol content, they have made already made an arrest for DUI. Typically, the suspect has already blown a failing score on the breathalyzer and failed field sobriety tests which are grounds enough to affect the arrest and the officer is getting the blood test for additional evidence at this point (while grounds for an arrest are met, the grounds for conviction may not be satisfied.  The BAC from a blood test will aide in adding further evidence against the drunk driver)", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 832, "original_index": 278}, "distance": 0.7068055868148804, "relevance_score": 0.29319441318511963}, {"content": "Question Title: legality behind the copyright of adagio in g minor\n\nQuestion Body: <p>sources claim it is still under copyright yet Artists continue to simply borrow from it or copy the piece.</p>\n<p>Does this mean that the fragment stolen by giazotto is copyright free?</p>\n<p>is it safe to cover giazotto's work without getting sued for it?</p>\n<p>I am composing a piece that uses this but I refuse to continue because that last thing I want is some guy in India try to sue me because they managed to buy the rights to adagio in g minor</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 542, "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 251}, "distance": 0.7068689465522766, "relevance_score": 0.2931310534477234}, {"content": "<p>The contract might be null and void as unreasonable, contrary to public policy, and/or on other grounds. But a wide range of scenarios would fall short of warranting a nullification of the contract.</p>\n<p>(Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the linked site.)</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 264, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 116, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.7068794965744019, "relevance_score": 0.29312050342559814}, {"content": "Tags: england-and-wales, legal-terms, discrimination, definition, harassment", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 262, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 76, "chunk_index": 8}, "distance": 0.7069627046585083, "relevance_score": 0.2930372953414917}, {"content": "Tags: united-states, evidence, search-and-seizure, fourth-amendment", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "content_length": 67, "original_index": 161, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7070313096046448, "relevance_score": 0.2929686903953552}, {"content": "Answer 3: <p>Drivers are negligent all the time. Not only by drunk driving, but also by speeding, driving when really tired, etc.</p>\n<p>The question is, what level of negligence is enough to call it recklessness?</p>\n<p>The rough method that is applied here is: If you killed someone, and the killing is connected to your negligent behaviour, then it was probably reckless.</p>\n<p>It is not the best method, but it is also not completely unreasonable.</p>\n\n\nAnswer 4: <p>Have you seen or watched the movie Minority Report?  People were arrested and imprisoned based upon what they would have done in the future.</p>\n<p>While you are probably unable to drive in a reasonably safe manner in that condition, getting into an accident moves that from probably to certainly. You didn\u2019t just subject yourself and others to an unmeasurable (possible) increase of risk to their safety, you actually caused harm.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 9, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 907, "original_index": 0}, "distance": 0.7071596384048462, "relevance_score": 0.2928403615951538}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Recommended instruction to the jury from the <a href=\"https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/the_jury.html\" rel=\"noreferrer\">NSW Criminal Trial Bench Book</a></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 258, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 201, "chunk_index": 3}, "distance": 0.7071622610092163, "relevance_score": 0.2928377389907837}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>As revised, I think this question is really asking <em>why</em> the judge in <a href=\"https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0219_09_0311.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Grainger plc v Nicholson</em> [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311</a> laid down the test that he did, when the statutory provision at hand used more general words.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 85, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "content_length": 348}, "distance": 0.7072145342826843, "relevance_score": 0.2927854657173157}, {"content": "Answer 1: <h2><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/53525/10334\">Facts are not copyrightable</a> <a href=\"/questions/tagged/united-states\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-united-states-tooltip-container\">united-states</a></h2>\n<p>Facts are not copyrightable since at least <strong>Feist</strong> Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., <a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340\" rel=\"noreferrer\">499 U.S. 340 (1991)</a>.</p>\n<p>IF you take <strong>only</strong> the facts and not the expression, then the news site can do nothing: you do not violate copyright by taking <strong>only</strong> the facts. Or as Scotus said in Feist:</p>\n<blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 812, "chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 141}, "distance": 0.7072814702987671, "relevance_score": 0.2927185297012329}, {"content": "Question Title: How far can cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies go?", "metadata": {"original_index": 27, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 93, "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7072944045066833, "relevance_score": 0.29270559549331665}, {"content": "<li>Mary Williams gave a statement to police that led to the eventual conviction of William Williams for the murder.</li>\n<li>However, the <em>reason</em> Mary gave the statement was because William severely beat her and &quot;being apprehensive of death, she made a disclosure.&quot; The common assumption is that William suspected that Mary knew something of the murder, because she had been deposed for an unsuccessful first prosecution against some other suspects.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The defendant in the contract suit did not want to pay the \u00a320. He argued that Mary did not make the disclosure because of the reward. The trial judge put it to the jury whether Mary was induced by the handbill. They found that &quot;she did not give that information for the sake of the \u00a320 reward, nor in consequence of the handbill, but from stings of conscience.&quot; The judge still ordered the \u00a320 to be paid.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 7, "content_length": 903, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 77}, "distance": 0.707352340221405, "relevance_score": 0.29264765977859497}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p>Assuming the court accepts that the provisions \u201c cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights\u201d which seems to be the case: you can\u2019t remove an unwilling person\u2019s testicles without violating their rights, the court must accept that the Minister \u201c was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.\u201d</p>\n<p>Too bad for Bob.</p>\n<p>You seem to be struggling under the misapprehension that human rights can never be violated by the government. This is not the case.</p>\n<p>Even in nations with Constitutional protection of rights, the law allows for the government to restrict or limit them where appropriate. For example, even in the USA, my freedom of expression does not extend to sharing top secret information with a journalist.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 805, "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 246}, "distance": 0.7073581218719482, "relevance_score": 0.29264187812805176}, {"content": "Question Title: How could someone whose trades are being copied be liable to the person who is doing the copying?", "metadata": {"original_index": 52, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 0, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 113}, "distance": 0.7073884010314941, "relevance_score": 0.29261159896850586}, {"content": "<p>The third requirement for the necessity defence is proportionality; it requires the trial judge to consider, as a question of law rather than fact, whether the harm avoided was proportionate to the harm inflicted.  It is difficult, at the conceptual level, to imagine a circumstance in which the proportionality requirement could be met for a homicide.  <strong>We leave open, if and until it arises, the question of whether the proportionality requirement could be met in a homicide situation</strong>.  <strong>In England, the defence of necessity is probably not available for homicide</strong>:  <em>R. v. Howe</em>, [1987] 1 A.C. 417 (H.L.), at pp. 453 and 429; J. Smith, <em>Smith &amp; Hogan: Criminal Law</em> (9th ed. 1999), at pp. 249-51.  The famous case of <em>R. v. Dudley and Stephens</em> (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 273, involving cannibalism on the high seas, is often cited as establishing the unavailability of the defence of necessity for homicide, although the case is not conclusive:", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 998, "chunk_index": 5, "original_index": 123, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7074836492538452, "relevance_score": 0.2925163507461548}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<blockquote>\n<p>As you can see from the image below law French is a bizarre mix of French, Latin, Anglo-Saxon and whatever other languages happened to be hanging around. ...</p>\n<p>Continental French was originally being used in courts but during the reign of Henry III and Edward I Anglo-French was used to create an entirely new legal vocabulary \u2018giving special meanings to ordinary words ...</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p><sup>Above from the second result returned from a web search for &quot;why was french used for English law&quot;. The first result, <a href=\"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_French\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">a Wikipedia article about law French</a>, is also informative.</sup></p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 131, "content_length": 713, "chunk_index": 2}, "distance": 0.7074971199035645, "relevance_score": 0.29250288009643555}, {"content": "<p>See <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_01\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rules 4-3(2)(b)(iv)</a>:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Unless the court otherwise orders, personal service of a document is to be effected as follows: ... on a corporation, ... in the manner provided by the <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02057_01#section9\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Business Corporations Act</em></a></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/02057_01#section9\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Business Corporations Act</em>, s. 9(a)</a> says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>... a record may be served on a company ... by delivering the record to the delivery address, or by mailing it by registered mail to the mailing address, shown for the registered office of the company in the corporate register</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 959, "chunk_index": 7, "original_index": 152}, "distance": 0.7075353860855103, "relevance_score": 0.29246461391448975}, {"content": "<p>Given that you are innocent until proven guilty the only purpose of the test is to prove you guilty, and so the person administering the test is doing so with the intent of doing you harm.</p>\n<p><strong>Are medical personnel required to draw blood in support of police investigations even when the patient/suspect is unable to provide consent?</strong></p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 278, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 360, "chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.707577645778656, "relevance_score": 0.292422354221344}, {"content": "Tags: defamation", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 8, "content_length": 16}, "distance": 0.7076411247253418, "relevance_score": 0.2923588752746582}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h2>&quot;Shooting down the plane&quot; is unlikely to fall under Notwehr in <a href=\"/questions/tagged/germany\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-germany-tooltip-container\">germany</a></h2>\n<p>In Germany, the fact pattern as described is impossible to achieve and still grant Notwehr. Notwehr is <strong>not</strong> the same as self defense under common law, but that is the best translation. In contrast to the wide latitude given in for example US law, it is <strong>incredibly tightly defined</strong> in Germany.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 647, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 277}, "distance": 0.7076857089996338, "relevance_score": 0.2923142910003662}, {"content": "Question Title: When is cursing illegal in the U.S.?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>For example, I've heard before that it's actually illegal to swear at a police officer (I've also heard that's true in the U.K. as well, although that's not my question).</p>\n\n<p>However, what counts as \"swearing\" is a very subjective thing, and clearly there are plenty of contexts where no word is off-limits (because, thankfully, free speech is a thing here), so it seems like a difficult thing to enforce. I've also never heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for this.</p>\n\n<p>So, the three parts of my question are:</p>\n\n<ul>\n<li>When is it illegal to swear, if ever (I'm guessing this probably varies a lot by state, so I'd be okay with just a federal law answer)?</li>\n<li>What actually counts as swearing (under each law / circumstance)?</li>\n<li>What penalties would I be facing (under each law / circumstance)?</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 193, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 908}, "distance": 0.7078049778938293, "relevance_score": 0.29219502210617065}, {"content": "<p>As a practical matter, a prosecutor wants to prosecute cases that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, and will usually try to do that. But a belief that a case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial is not an ethical requirement for prosecutors and is not a ground for imposing sanctions against a prosecutor. Of course, individual prosecuting attorneys' offices are free to establish their own standards that are more rigorous as an internal policy for bringing criminal cases.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 38, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 509, "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7078426480293274, "relevance_score": 0.2921573519706726}, {"content": "<p>(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or\nany of them from engaging in that activity,</p>\n<p>(b)of obstructing that activity, or</p>\n<p>(c)of disrupting that activity.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>It doesn't provide for a defence or lawful excuse.*</p>\n<p>&quot;Land&quot; includes buildings: <a href=\"https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1814.html\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin)</a>.</p>\n<p>My understanding is that the people who set the alarms were invited to the banquet. However, the fact of the invitation of the banquet did not give them licence to release electronic alarms tied to balloons at the banquet.</p>\n<p>The act need not be illegal in itself. The necessary element is that the person carried out the act with the intention of intimidating, obstructing or disrupting. The people who released the balloons seem to openly admit to intention to disrupt the banquet.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 120, "chunk_index": 8, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 953}, "distance": 0.7078522443771362, "relevance_score": 0.29214775562286377}, {"content": "<p>(i) access any part of the Services, Content, data or information you do not have permission or authorization to access or for which NYT has revoked your access;</p>\n<p>(ii) use robots, spiders, scripts, service, <strong>software or any manual or automatic device, tool, or process designed to data mine or scrape the Content, data or information from the Services, or otherwise access or collect the Content, data or information from the Services using automated means;</strong></p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Violating the Terms of Service means, you are in breach of contract and got no license to access any of the data. This allows claims starting with breach of contract and going up to intruding into the servers and violating various computer crime laws. However, do note that having a possible charge does not mean that it will result in a  trial or even conviction.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 228, "content_length": 872}, "distance": 0.708016037940979, "relevance_score": 0.291983962059021}, {"content": "<p>Edit: Now I see you've changed the question a bit to claiming to be first. Yes, the injured party can sue for that, but they are more claiming false advertising than libel. Accusing someone of not being first-to-market is not a particularly powerful or damning claim. Oreo didn't invent the sandwich cookie nor did Apple invent the computer.  So <strong>such a claim is really a lot more about the publicity</strong> than actual, provable damages; so the controversy is more likely to be aired <em>outside</em> the court system, or in the courts but mainly for the publicity. (an example of the latter being the &quot;Taco Tuesday&quot; trademark-busting action; IIRC Taco Bell even paid the other party's legal fees, despite prevailing.)</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 2, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 745, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 151}, "distance": 0.7080579996109009, "relevance_score": 0.2919420003890991}, {"content": "Tags: contract-law, employment", "metadata": {"content_length": 30, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 88, "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7083824872970581, "relevance_score": 0.2916175127029419}, {"content": "<p>Implied licenses are valid but their conditions are not crystal clear, see for example Latimer v Roaring Toyz, 601 F.3d 1224, Pelaez v McGraw Hill, 399 F. Supp. 3d 120. <a href=\"https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/283\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">This instruction</a> on implied licenses say how the defendant can establish that there is such a license.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>the defendant has the burden of proving that:</p>\n<ol>\n<li>the defendant requested that the plaintiff create a work; 2. the plaintiff made that particular work and delivered it to the defendant;\nand 3. the plaintiff intended that the defendant [copy] [distribute]\n[use] [retain] the plaintiff's work.</li>\n</ol>\n</blockquote>\n<p>If the court cares about the first test (which is a bit ritualistic), there was never an implied license, that is, the magazine erred in not securing a <em>written</em> license. An implied license cannot be perpetual or exclusive.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 954, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 50, "chunk_index": 6}, "distance": 0.708401620388031, "relevance_score": 0.291598379611969}, {"content": "possible legal effects, the social implications of such an occurrence\n  in a major western country are vast. International leaders will\n  certainly take note as the effects of this change begin to take place\n  in Germany\u2019s laws and, increasingly, in its international policies.</p>\n  \n  <p>More importantly, the global animal protection community should take\n  note of what is possible, and what can be learned from the\n  achievements of Germany\u2019s animal protection community. This study\n  traces the legal and social developments leading to Germany\u2019s\n  constitutional amendment which provides protection to animals, showing\n  how this legal highpoint was achieved. </p>\n  \n  <p>Multiple sources are used, including congressional, judicial, and\n  party documents, press releases, international media reports, personal\n  communication with leaders in four major German animal protection\n  organizations, interviews with a key Ministry official, and published\n  materials. </p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 14, "content_length": 975, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 200, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7089064717292786, "relevance_score": 0.29109352827072144}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The first thing you need to know is that if you go to law school, you will hate your life for at least those three years. Law school is not like other graduate school programs. If you do reasonably well, it will almost certainly consume your life. Law school students (and lawyers) experience substantially higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and depression. And student debt, of course.</p>\n<p>The second thing you need to know is that the legal jobs that most people seem to dream of are in very short supply. I haven't looked at the latest market research, but I'd be comfortable betting that the vast majority of work that is available is in criminal law and defending businesses.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 704, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 272}, "distance": 0.7090816497802734, "relevance_score": 0.29091835021972656}, {"content": "<p>Later I clone the Linux partition with all my files onto my own laptop, and play DOOM from there. At this point, we have 2 separate computers with the same exact original copy of  one game. I'm guessing that isn't permitted by the EULA (not that anyone cares).</p>\n\n<p>My question is, where does the law draw the line? At what point does it become against the license policy?  </p>\n\n<p>PS: I did actually end up buying the entire series, because I decided to record the MIDI music turning them into MP3's (and FLACs).  </p>\n\n<p>I am located in Canada, and forgot to metion I am playing this via source port \"GZDoom\" licensed under GNU GPL3+ and MIT. Only the gamefiles (IWAD's) are subject to standard copyright.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 48, "content_length": 719, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.7091459035873413, "relevance_score": 0.2908540964126587}, {"content": "Answer 2: <blockquote>\n<p>Is Charles\u2019s word enough to convict Alice of a crime?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Usually yes unless his is discredited or found unreliable.</p>\n<p>He may be discredited if he has history of being dishonest, especially if convicted for it.</p>\n<p>He may be found unreliable if he is inconsistent about details of what he saw (e.g. tells different stories at different times), if he has had some conflicts with Alice, if he is on Bob's payroll and so on.</p>\n<p>All those are just factors that the trier of fact may/will consider. There can't be an unequivocal yes or no.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 258, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 4, "content_length": 593, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7095287442207336, "relevance_score": 0.29047125577926636}, {"content": "<p>Also, most American jurisdictions would, unlike Article 90a, usually focus on the distinction between \"pets\" or \"companion animals\" and property, while not doing so for livestock in most circumstances, as the German civil code does.</p>\n\n<p>One of the classic trick questions on the American bar exam is to set up a criminal law question involving what would an an assault or a murder, but to substitute a dog or a cat for a person, which transforms the crime into theft or vandalism, since in the criminal law, animals are generally treated as property subject to some specific exceptions for animal cruelty and blackmail.</p>\n\n<p>German law addresses to some extent that sense that trips up American law students each year, that this absolute treatment of animals as having merely property status, derived from English common law, is unduly harsh.</p>\n\n<p>Two recent law review articles explain what these recent changes in the legal status of animals in Germany mean.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 977, "chunk_index": 11, "original_index": 200, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7097241878509521, "relevance_score": 0.29027581214904785}, {"content": "</blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https://law.stackexchange.com/a/91411/46948\">Statutes can redefine or deem words to have particular meanings</a>, including by deeming the word &quot;use&quot; to include things that would not be typically considered &quot;use.&quot; This is not an attempt to alter the metaphysical reality. It is simply constructing <em>legal</em> meaning.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 209, "chunk_index": 10, "content_length": 371}, "distance": 0.7098400592803955, "relevance_score": 0.2901599407196045}, {"content": "Question Title: Does an illegal mode of creation or fixation remove a work from copyrightability?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Does an illegal mode of creation or fixation (such as vandalism by graffiti) mean that the work is not the subject of copyright?</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 112, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 249, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7098963260650635, "relevance_score": 0.2901036739349365}, {"content": "<p>Two recent law review articles explain what these recent changes in the legal status of animals in Germany mean.</p>\n\n<p>A <a href=\"https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/vol10_p283.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">law review article from 2004</a> explores the important changes in the legal status of animals in Germany that occurred in 2002. The abstract of the article explains:</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 200, "content_length": 394, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 12}, "distance": 0.7100387215614319, "relevance_score": 0.2899612784385681}, {"content": "<p><strong>Is the woman legally guilty of murder (or, if not, any form of homicide)?</strong></p>\n\n<p>I'm interested in any and all reasons for the answer being yes or no, but my main concern is the following:</p>\n\n<p>The act of procuring an abortion, as I understand it, would satisfy the <em>actus reus</em> of murder, that is, the deliberate ending of a human life. However, if someone is genuinely convinced that they are <em>not</em> killing a human being (which includes the circumstance that what they <em>are</em> killing is not a human being), it would seem that they do not satisfy the requirement for <em>mens rea</em> for a murder conviction.</p>\n\n<p>One might draw a parallel with a woman with postpartum psychosis who, while hallucinating that her six-month-old son is a monster, throws him from the balcony of an apartment building, killing him. In both cases, the woman involved causes the death of her child, but is totally convinced that she is not killing a human being.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 234, "content_length": 993, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1}, "distance": 0.7100959420204163, "relevance_score": 0.28990405797958374}, {"content": "Answer 5: <h2>Yes, but \u2026</h2>\n<p><a href=\"/questions/tagged/new-south-wales\" class=\"post-tag\" title=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" aria-label=\"show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;\" rel=\"tag\" aria-labelledby=\"tag-new-south-wales-tooltip-container\">new-south-wales</a></p>\n<p><a href=\"https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1995-025#sec.127\" rel=\"noreferrer\">s127</a> of the uniform Evidence Act allows a member of the clergy to refuse to reveal the contents of or existence of a confession.</p>\n<p>However, unlike a lawyer\u2019s privilege, if the cleric chooses to testify, the evidence is admissible.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 658, "chunk_index": 12, "original_index": 291, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7101341485977173, "relevance_score": 0.2898658514022827}, {"content": "Question Title: What is \u201cprivate law\u201d?\n\nQuestion Body: <p><a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/156\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">Section 156 of the Equality Act 2010</a> says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>A failure in respect of a performance of a duty imposed by or under this Chapter does not confer a cause of action at private law.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>What does the phrase <em>at private law</em> mean?</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 124, "chunk_index": 0, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 424, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7102247476577759, "relevance_score": 0.2897752523422241}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>See generally <em>Hamer v. Sidway</em> (1891), <a href=\"https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/hamer_sidway.htm\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\">124 NY 538</a>, citing indirectly <em>Currie v Misa</em> (1875) LR 10 Ex 893:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>'A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, <strong>or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other</strong>.' Courts 'will not ask whether the thing which forms the consideration does in fact benefit the promisee or a third party, or is of any substantial value to anyone. <strong>It is enough that something is promised, done, forborne or suffered by the party to whom the promise is made as consideration for the promise made to him</strong>.</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"content_length": 862, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 1}, "distance": 0.7102797031402588, "relevance_score": 0.2897202968597412}, {"content": "the statute almost anticipates our current surreal scenario:  \u201cIt also\nmeans to interfere with or obstruct one of its [the country\u2019s] lawful\ngovernmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by\nmeans that are dishonest.&quot;</p>\n</blockquote>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 83, "chunk_index": 6, "content_length": 258}, "distance": 0.7103798389434814, "relevance_score": 0.28962016105651855}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>I am a girl attending a boarding high school in the US. In June, some students who returned to the dorm early saw some male teachers exiting their rooms. They reportedly ran back to the school building without answering any questions when they saw the students. That night, multiple students shared that their drawers were seemingly searched and in some cases underwear and other things were missing.</p>\n<p>In the monthly school meeting the search became the main topic. Eventually a high-ranking teacher attempted to clarify what happened. He claimed that they &quot;had suspicion&quot; that someone was hiding illegal firearms in their room, but they could not narrow it down so they had to search all the rooms, both the boys' and the girls'. They declined to explain any further on the reasoning behind the suspicion and merely added they reported it to the police and received permission. The session was then dismissed much earlier than usual.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 55, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 972}, "distance": 0.7105753421783447, "relevance_score": 0.2894246578216553}, {"content": "Question Title: Theoretical vs. Actual Speed Limit\n\nQuestion Body: <p>One of the peculiarities of Texas is that it's normal for people to drive 5-10 MPH over the speed limit while on the interstate. Provided they're not doing a speed trap, the police generally don't care.</p>\n<p>Another of Texas's peculiarities is that most drivers don't respect reduced speed limits for construction zones unless there's a speed trap or it's dangerous to go normal speeds.</p>\n<p>As a result, if you drive the speed limit, you can conceivably end up driving 15 mph slower than everybody else in construction zones. This is unsafe for you and everybody else on the surrounding road.</p>\n<p>Say that you're going the speed limit, and someone hits you because you're going 15 mph slower than the prevailing traffic conditions. Are you liable? You're following the speed limit, but by doing so you made yourself a danger to those around you.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 61, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 927, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7107380628585815, "relevance_score": 0.28926193714141846}, {"content": "Question Title: Where does the idea of entitlement to make submissions to a court originate?", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 0, "original_index": 45, "content_length": 92, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.71091628074646, "relevance_score": 0.28908371925354004}, {"content": "Answer 1: <blockquote>\n<p>Is speech over amateur radio constitutionally protected?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Of course.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Could I theoretically sue the FCC for the right to broadcast music on 20 meters, and have a chance of winning on free speech grounds?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You can certainly sue.  I don't know enough about existing jurisprudence to comment on the likelihood of success.</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>If the FCC made a rule, at the direction of Congress, prohibiting political speech over amateur radio, would that be enforceable? What if the rule allowed promotion of party X but not party Y?</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>Of course not.</p>\n<hr />", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 1, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 663, "original_index": 286, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.710919976234436, "relevance_score": 0.28908002376556396}, {"content": "Question Title: Is there a copyright issue for TikTok or YouTube users who upload a short film on the app?\n\nQuestion Body: <p>Uploading an entire movie without permission from the copyright holder is definitely an issue.</p>\n<p>Since everyone is doing it and nobody gets sued, can we assume it is <strong>not</strong> a copyright violation? (Not necessarily, right?)</p>\n<p>There should be more detail and complex lines over here. Please help me understand better.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 167, "chunk_index": 0, "content_length": 468}, "distance": 0.7109321355819702, "relevance_score": 0.2890678644180298}, {"content": "<p>Was that a legal stop? Then he asked for drivers license and proof of insurance. The car was not mine so I told him I didn\u2019t have proof of insurance and I didn\u2019t have my license on me. So he gave me a pen and pad to write down the name. I write down my sisters name assuming because it's her car he\u2019d be able to find it's registered to her and he'd find the insurance I didn't know it was my first time ever ever stopped. Another office came and he asked for MY name in specific so I gave it to him and he said is that the same name you gave to the other officer I said no I gave home my sisters name because that's who's car this is.</p>\n<p>In the end the original cop told me to step out, he searched the car (didn't find anything) and then arrested me for failure to ID and false information.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 223, "chunk_index": 2, "content_length": 802, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7110128402709961, "relevance_score": 0.2889871597290039}, {"content": "Answer 1: <p>The general rule is that a warrant is required to enter private property (absent constitutional case law exceptions to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances and consent), and that a warrant is available only when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.</p>\n<p>Whether the neglect or abuse of an animal constitutes a crime within the meaning of this 4th Amendment requirement could potentially be seen as a gray area, since historically, in the absence of statutory authority in early common law, an owner of an animal had absolute authority to deal with his or her property (the animal) as the owner of the animal saw fit.</p>\n<p>The purpose of the statute is to clarify that this conduct by an animal owner constitutes a crime for 4th Amendment search and seizure purposes by making a state law determination that it is a crime, which states can do, even though they can't change the constitutional requirement under the 4th Amendment.</p>", "metadata": {"content_length": 986, "original_index": 212, "chunk_index": 3, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7112529277801514, "relevance_score": 0.28874707221984863}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p>If is is <em>still</em> insane, he can't be tried. If Juan is competent to stand trial (is cured), he may enter an &quot;insanity plea&quot;. Following Washington law, that means per <a href=\"https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.77&amp;full=true\" rel=\"noreferrer\">RCW 10.77.030</a> that within ten days of arraignment (or more with court permission), he files written notice of the intent to rely on that defense. If he provides satisfactory evidence that he was insane at the time, he is acquitted. The jury must also determine whether Juan is a current danger, and since by the hypothetical he is no longer insane, he will not be committed to a mental hospital. The jury answers a series of questions, following RCW 10.77.110: is the defendant a substantial danger to other persons unless kept under further control by the court or other persons or institutions? If so, does the defendant present a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public", "metadata": {"content_length": 995, "original_index": 37, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 5, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7120636105537415, "relevance_score": 0.28793638944625854}, {"content": "</li>\n</ul>\n<p>There is no requirement that the defendant disclosed any facts about the plaintiff, as in a public disclosure claim. Liability attaches to the intrusion itself.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>You will note that having a good reason for the intrusion is not a defence.</p>\n<h2>Defences</h2>\n<h3>Permission</h3>\n<p>There is no tort if the person (or their legal guardian) consents to the search. Such a consent might be in the contract between the student (or their parents as guardians) and the school.</p>\n<p>The consent may be in general terms such as allowing the school to \u201ctake reasonable steps\u201d to enforce school rules or protect the health and safety of students, staff, and visitors. Whether what the did was in line with the contract would depend on the circumstances - it could go either way.</p>\n<h3><a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>In loco parentis</em></a></h3>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 7, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 55, "content_length": 932}, "distance": 0.7124010324478149, "relevance_score": 0.28759896755218506}, {"content": "Answer 2: <h3>The legislative reason</h3>\n<p>The Crown Court is a single, unified court, first established by the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/23/enacted\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Courts Act 1971</em></a>, s. 4:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>There shall be a Crown Court in England and Wales which shall be a superior court of record.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>This has been superseded by the <a href=\"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54\" rel=\"nofollow noreferrer\"><em>Senior Courts Act 1981</em></a>, but the name remains the same.</p>\n<h3>Historical context</h3>\n<p>The Crown Court replaced the previous Courts of Quarter Session and Courts of Assize. There were also two experimental crown courts previously set up in Manchester and Liverpool in 1956 that had also fused the assize and quarter sessions jurisdiction.</p>\n<h3>The Royal Commission's reasons for recommending this name</h3>", "metadata": {"original_index": 231, "content_length": 911, "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 3, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7124648094177246, "relevance_score": 0.2875351905822754}, {"content": "Question Body: <p>Both of my parents signed an agreement with my high school to permit me to complete my high school graduation requirements in college. They both also signed a college enrollment form that specifically gave me permission as a minor and their dependent child to attend the college. My (high) school district is paying for the classes and a bus pass.</p>\n<p>My father has stated his intent to renege on the agreement.</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "chunk_index": 1, "original_index": 39, "content_length": 436}, "distance": 0.7124754786491394, "relevance_score": 0.2875245213508606}, {"content": "<p><a href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333\" rel=\"noreferrer\">47 U.S.C. \u00a7 333</a> states:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>It is clear to me that indiscriminately jamming a radio band is illegal under both the US and UK Communications Acts. What is not clear to me is whether interjecting additional commands is illegal, nor whether a drone user operating within the vicinity of such a device counts as \"authorized\" under this particular facet of law. From what I have read, the term appears to refer to communications which are not themselves in violation of the Communications Act, but I'm not certain whether this matters.</p>\n\n<p>Are these devices illegal under US/UK law? Is there any precedent in this matter?</p>", "metadata": {"dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 34, "content_length": 960, "chunk_index": 4, "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.712517261505127, "relevance_score": 0.28748273849487305}, {"content": "<p>The timing aspect of the BAC test result means that, ultimately, you could be charging people with a low enough (But too high legally) BAC amount for simply not waiting longer. &quot;Oh, you didn't wait another 40 minutes before getting onto the road after waiting 80 minutes, so we're going to give you extended jail time&quot; does feel a bit harsh - even if the math might be more complicated than that (See also, how body weight can affect the approximate mathematics in the above linked Wikipedia article). It's also a significantly small margin at times, and you could be punishing people who were spiked beyond the limit unexpectedly.</p>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 648, "chunk_index": 11, "original_index": 0}, "distance": 0.7125176787376404, "relevance_score": 0.2874823212623596}, {"content": "<p>It will probably take longer than you would like, but if you keep hassling them then they will probably either get to the bottom of it, or give up and reimburse you.</p>\n<p>If you suffer any consequential losses, such as from being unable to pay bills and getting penalties, they may well agree to pay those too, provided you are polite but insistent.</p>\n<p>But be careful:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>If it turns out that it was your son or daughter, you may be bringing the criminal law down on them. That's probably not what you want.</li>\n<li>So <strong>first be absolutely sure that you don't know who it was</strong>, and that you are happy to do that.</li>\n</ul>", "metadata": {"source": "Law-StackExchange", "content_length": 658, "chunk_index": 14, "original_index": 21, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7125465869903564, "relevance_score": 0.28745341300964355}, {"content": "<p>\u201cThroughout the incident, the child was comforted by a PCSO who immediately recognised his distress. Anyone seeing how upset he was would be moved by this, and we regret any impact it may have on him.</p>\n<p>\u201cWe recognise that the use of handcuffs can be a cause of concern, particularly given the context of this incident and the type of offence involved, but when a person is trying to physically leave an incident it is an option officers can consider. All uses of force must be proportionate and necessary in the circumstances.</p>\n<p>\u201cTicket inspection operations of this nature are difficult. They place police officers in direct confrontation with frustrated members of the public and could escalate what would otherwise be civil matters to a different level.</p>", "metadata": {"original_index": 158, "content_length": 773, "chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange"}, "distance": 0.7125681042671204, "relevance_score": 0.28743189573287964}, {"content": "Answer 2: <p><strong>It depends</strong>.  I think it would turn sharply on a couple of things.</p>\n<h2>The underlying reason for the suit</h2>\n<p>Let us suppose that the business is a lumberyard that sells the customer roof trusses.  The insurer has a problem with the trusses for complex engineering reasons: the store says the customer misapplied perfectly good product.  Yes, that lumberyard can be expected to &quot;86&quot; that customer (at least, as regards to selling them engineered products LOL.)</p>\n<p>However.  If the suit is &quot;you refused to sell trusses to me <strong>because I am Irish</strong>&quot;, that is a horse of a different color and should rapidly result in a ruling that &quot;you can't refuse service for that reason&quot;. If the shop could simply change the reason to &quot;you sued me&quot;, that would utterly defeat the ruling <em>and civil-protection law generally</em> - so yeah, that would be a &quot;contempt of court&quot; scenario.</p>", "metadata": {"chunk_index": 4, "dataset": "ymoslem/Law-StackExchange", "source": "Law-StackExchange", "original_index": 145, "content_length": 979}, "distance": 0.7128207683563232, "relevance_score": 0.28717923164367676}]


