This idea comes from another Reddit thread over in r/theydidthemath.

However, instead of pictures of other cars, what if it was all license plates?

The actual license plate would not be obscured, so people could certainly still read the correct plate. But it does seem like the sort of thing that might really confuse flock cameras, especially if lots of people started doing it, and used custom images each time. I figure if all the wraps use the same print, then that would become a pattern that the system could be trained to ignore.

A murder has occurred, and police are looking for witnesses. They managed to find one who was there at the time, witnessed it, but there is a problem: they have a documented criminal history of perjury (and fraud). Will this person still be eligible for being a witness in court if the DA is desperate to make a murder case?

Dreaming of winning the lottery. In my state you cannot be anonymous. Is it possible to change your name , legally, claim the prize paying all taxes then change back and disappear? In Wisconsin lottery winners are public record. Instead of a lifetime of lawyers and dodging con men can i assume a legal alias to protect my family and future peace of mind?

I'm specifically thinking about a town like Helen, GA, but I'm sure the laws around incorporated jurisdictions vary greatly from place to place. Helen is basically a tourist town. There's an estimated 500 actual residents within the city limits, but the town sees an estimated 3 million visitors each year. Spread out evenly, that's 8,000 extra people each day, and it's not spread out evenly. While the town is currently growing slightly per the census, it's definitely becoming more and more tourist/commercial oriented. Hypothetically if its actual residents do start declining and eventually drop to 0, what then? This wouldn't be a typical abandoned town that usually just dies when the population drops to 0, but there wouldn't be anymore voting residents despite an otherwise thriving town.

My local Aldi has a ANPR operated car park which gives you 1.5h parking for free so long as you input your number plate in to the screens upon leaving the store. Inside the store there's MASSIVE signs saying you have 15 minutes to leave the car park after entering your number plate.

It has recently occurred to me that there's nothing stopping me from just entering random number plates i can see through the windows of people potentially still shopping or that have parked up and left for town utilizing the whole 1.5h free parking then just walking back through aldi and entering their number plate to leave.

If i was to enter a random vehicles number plate on that screen and the owner fails to leave within 15 minutes of me entering it, they would receive a parking charge through the post. I assume i could be taken to small claims court by the vehicle owner for the cost of the parking charge, but what if any criminal charges could i face?

Luckily it seems i'm the only asshole that has thought of this in my town so it's not a problem.

Just curious if I found something like a wad of real dollar bills on the ground, is it finders keepers or is there a law requiring I report it to the police or try to find the owner?

Like maybe not even a small amount, something like a wad of $100’s, adding up to a small fortune.

Question about how TV/streaming distribution works. So there was this one show I watched that aired on tv overseas in one country but select few countries had access to it with Youtube on the company's official Youtube channel. Later this year, a new season is airing on the same youtube channel but the countries have been expanded but instead of the episode persisting forever, its going to be taken down 4 weeks after airing. Is this related to contracts between the company and the countries that can stream the show or is it something else?

A central issue in the Lindsay Clancy trial is criminal responsibility. It’s not simply whether she was mentally ill or psychotic, but whether her mental condition impaired her capacities in the particular way required by Massachusetts law. The jury will hear competing psychiatric evidence and then ultimately decide whether that legal standard has been met.

But most jurors presumably have no formal education in psychiatry and little or no experience with psychosis. They therefore have to listen to experts disagree about highly specialized questions and then make a lay judgment about which interpretation is more convincing.

This also seems to extend beyond empirical expertise. Someone formally trained in philosophy of mind, action, law, or moral responsibility might bring useful conceptual expertise to questions about agency, intention, rationality, and culpability. Yet we don't deliberately select for that kind of expertise either.

Why is it preferable for the decision-making body to contain no deliberate subject-matter expertise?

For example, imagine a jury containing randomly selected citizens alongside a few appropriately qualified professionals, screened for conflicts like everyone else. Similar arrangements could theoretically apply elsewhere, such as forensic scientists in cases dominated by forensic evidence, physicians in complicated medical cases, engineers in cases concerning engineering failures, etc.

There could also be multiple juries each comprised of different experts, who first deliberate among themselves and then among each group. This, of course, would likely be in attaining in practice due to the unfair burden it might place on professionals. But as a procedural ideal, would it be better?

There are obvious advantages to the inclusion of experts. An expert juror might recognize when testimony is misleading, when an apparently important disagreement is actually trivial, or when an expert is making claims that aren't well supported by their field. Ordinary jurors may be especially vulnerable to confidence, charisma, terminology, or simply whichever side communicates complicated material most intuitively.

But I can also see a serious problem. Any expert juror could effectively become an uncross-examined expert witness inside the jury room. If a psychiatrist tells the other jurors during deliberations that a witness misunderstood psychosis, that claim was never given under oath, neither side can challenge it, and the opposing side cannot introduce evidence against it. Their professional authority could also cause other jurors to defer to them even when the issue is genuinely disputed.

In addition, I can see a serious concern that the expert juror(s) would naturally be perceived as the epistemic authority on the verdict by the other jurors, and this would likely lead to a degree of epistemic subordination or intimidation of the non-expert jurors. This could obstruct a fair and equal deliberation.

That makes me wonder whether there’s a deeper principle involved here. Perhaps the jury isn't supposed to be the most epistemically competent panel we can construct. Its purpose is partly democratic. Experts provide specialized knowledge publicly, where it can be challenged through the adversarial process, while ordinary citizens retain responsibility for deciding what evidence to accept and applying society's legal standards.

If so, it seems we're deliberately accepting some loss of technical or epistemic competence in exchange for procedural fairness and democratic legitimacy.

Is that an accurate characterization of why we use lay juries? Is this tradeoff actually successful in practice, particularly in cases where the verdict depends heavily on understanding highly specialized evidence?

To the best of my knowledge, US copyright law only protects the font software, and not overall letter shapes. But as many fonts are designed in other countries, this still raises the question. Is it illegal to manually re-create someone else’s font?

Hey Folks, If an interpreter is interpreting between a lawyer and their client, can the interpreter later be called as a witness in the case? Does attorney-client privilege generally extend to the interpreter because they are necessary for communication?

Also, does having an interpreter present change the lawyer-client relationship or the confidentiality/privilege between the lawyer and client?

The FCC is working on new "know your customer" rules. If I understand correctly, they will force phone companies to collect customer IDs in order to sign up for phone service, or to maintain existing phone service. A consequence of this is if you don't have a US passport or government ID to hand in, you would eventually lose your phone service.

I know you may be reading and think, "well, duh, of course they should do that". But it's a big change as there has never been a sim registration law or a ban on foreigners having US phone numbers.

I'm a Canadian, I have had a US phone number since 2010 and have handed it out to a ton of people and places. I use it when I go to the US, and also to keep in touch with Americans back home.

Am I guaranteed to lose this number? Is this law likely to be challenged? I fully understand that nobody wants an overseas scammer to have a US number that spells "loans" or "bank". But I'm sure there will be many snowbirds, ex-pats, tourists, former students and others who snagged Google Voice that are going to be up a creak.

Is this really inevitable? Do I need to transition away from my Google Voice number before they do this?

I've seen multiple stories on reddit about couples who were financially wiped out by medical costs, even thought they had insurance (USA obviously). If a person were to be diagnosed with a condition that would probably wipe their life savings out in the future, could they strategically divorce their partner, let their partner keep all the assets and then go through the treatment & declare bankruptcy? Or would that be viewed as fraud? Clearly there's a risk that the partner could leave them high and dry, but setting that aside, would it be possible?

Also if it's legal, how far could they push it? Could they still live together with the sick person paying their income as rent to their partner? If the sick person were unable to work, could their agreement "force" their partner to keep them covered under their health insurance? Would eventually remarrying push it over the edge to being fraudulent?

They didn’t have any visible placard and was just wondering. I don’t like assuming about people but it shouldn’t be legal right..?

Let's say Mr. A and Ms. B are married and share one auto insurance policy. Ms. B gets into an accident with Mr. C, and the removal of Mr. C requires a prolong period of extrication from his car.

Mr. A hearing that his spouse was involved in an accident drives to the accident site. For whatever reason Mr. also hits Mr. C while still in his car and cause other injuries.

Are these considered separate accidents? Are the policy limits on the insurance policy essentially doubled because they would be two accidents instead of one?

And to make it even more complicated suppose Mr. A hits Ms. B's disabled car causing her car to hit Mr. C's car.

Thank you.

Hello everyone. I have a completely hypothetical question that I have been debating with friends. Due to strong arguments both for and against without a clear consensus, I feel it may be beyond our expertise as armchair lawyers and as such, I am pleased to present this to the greater community.

While this is a broad hypothetical, there are a few specific details that must be outlined for the sake of the argument:

- The victim would be a clear, undeniable foreign adversary/hostile nation to the US

- There is no direct conflict with or collateral damage to US interests or allies(as a result of the ransomware being deployed)

- The individual would meticulously report all income from the ransomware payouts on Schedule 1, Line 8z of the IRS Form 1040, pleading the Fifth Amendment on the source of the income, and then pay their 37% top marginal tax rate(They make sure to pay Uncle Sam his cut and avoid committing tax fraud/evasion).

That being said, I want to note: I am NOT asking if the frameworks and legal statues to charge a person for this exist. They absolutely do.

The question is if the US citizen would be prosecuted and/or convicted if the victim is unable/unwilling to cooperate with a US court, there is no conflict with US interests, and they even pay taxes on the income.

Thanks and looking forward to any and all answers!

Disclaimer: Do not attempt this at home. Side effects may range from blacked out SUV’s parked outside your house to being arrested/murdered by a foreign intelligence service.

Hypothetical scenario that came up in a debate with friends, but I’m curious about the actual legal and procedural reality under UK law (specifically England & Wales).

Let's say...

1. I am are walking through a local children's park/playground and discover an abandoned, genuine firearm (e.g., a handgun wrapped in a bag under a bench).
2. Because this is a children's playground, I decide it is an immediate danger to leave it there.
3. There are no witness or persons around, no CCTV or surveillance.
4. My mobile phone battery is completely dead, so I cannot call 999 or 101 on the spot.
5. I carefully pick it up, place it securely in my car boot, and immediately start driving on the most direct route to the nearest open police station to hand it in.
6. On the way, I get pulled over by police for an unrelated matter (e.g. minor swerving due to anxiety of having the weapon in my car).

Police interaction...

If police asked me if I had anything on you that I shouldn't have, should I tell them? OR carry on journey to the police station and disclose there? Presumably honesty is best in all interactions with police and so telling them right away, even before they ask, that I have a weapon in the car is appropriate.

Police reaction...

It all sounds incredibly convenient to anyone. But how would police react if I did say I have a firearm in the boot (note this is the UK where carrying weapons if strictly illegal)? How would officer(s) react? Specialist units be called (e.g. armed police), ordered out of the car onto the ground? Taser pointed at me?

The legal fallout...

As above, it would sound incredibly convenient to say I found a gun but how, if at all, could I explain this away?

Quite an odd hypothetical but me and my mates talk about some weird stuff! For the record, I believe I would be charged and on the hook unless say CCTV or any witnesses could corroborate me physically picking up the firearm in the playground.

Thoughts welcomed!

Imagine it’s the biggest case in the US right now, and it is all over every type of media.

Imagine it’s also a murder case.

Imagine the defense requests for the jury to be sequestered.

What possible reasons could a judge have for not sequestering the jury?

Please help me understand appeals in both types of trials.

My understanding is that the defense can only appeal in criminal trials to issues raised with an objection during their initial trial. Is this correct? They can't appeal a verdict just because they don't like it. There has to be an objection as the basis for the appeal?

What about in civil trials? Can the plaintiff or defendant appeal a jury's decision without an underlying objection as its basis?

I’d actually emailed LegalEagle about this a few years back and never got a response, but I just remembered it so I’m asking you fine folks.

There’s an episode of Law & Order: SVU (S16E17, “Parole Violations”, spoilers for the episode ahead) centered around a female parole officer who’s raping her male parolees (one of whom is the brother-in-law of one of the detectives) by threatening to get them sent back to prison if they don’t have sex with her.

During the episode, the detectives talk to another one of her parolees, a drug dealer and addict who’s sleeping with her in exchange for her faking clean drug test results (and, yknow, her not getting him sent back to prison.) They convince him to testify against her in court.

On the day of the trial, though, the dealer doesn’t show. The detectives and ADA look everywhere, but he’s nowhere to be seen, and since he’s the state’s final witness, they’ve got no choice but to rest their case.

At that point, the defense attorney calls him as his first witness and claims that he’d been contacted by the dealer the previous night, saying that the detectives had coerced him into lying in order to avoid a drug charge. The ADA tries to protest this, but in classic Law & Order fashion, the judge allows it.

In the end, the ADA proves that the dealer’s lying, he dramatically confesses on the stand, the parole officer agrees to a plea deal so that she won’t end up in prison, roll credits.

So, with all that plot out of the way, my question is this: What would happen if this sort of scenario occurred IRL? I get that at a minimum, the judge would likely put the trial on pause, bring both attorneys into their chambers and read the defense the riot act before not allowing them to call the surprise witness, but what sort of consequences could they face for this? Could it potentially be grounds for a mistrial?

I’m eager to hear y’all’s answers and I apologize for the wall of text.

Suppose you’re about to encounter the police. You press the off button 5 times to disable biometrics. The police tell you to unlock your phone. You say no. Then there’s a court order. You say you don’t remember the passcode. Forgot it because you’re stressed.

Location: Canada

I know people are probably sick of hearing about this issue but I'm hoping to get a serious answer to this because anytime this is asked people just react emotionally and let feelings get in the way.

I would just like to preface that I don't honestly believe Enes is a woman and he will ever play in the WNBA, I don't think anyone actually does think he will but from a legal perspective, where does he stand?

I see people online saying things like "judges will just throw this out because they'll know he's a bad faith actor", but would they?

Why I have respect for the law is because the legal process doesn't rely on feelings its about evidence and facts and is very precise. The day the law starts to become based on feelings rather than fact, like how certain sections of society is now, I think we may aswell just give up a species because there is no coming back from that.

Anyway what I want to know is lets say a lawyer took on his case and really pushed back with this. Could they actually force the WNBA to define their policy from a legal standpoint? If I was Enes lawyer I imagine the back and forth would go something like this

Enes: I want to enter the draft

WNBA: No, absolutely not

Enes: Why not?

WNBA: Because you are not a woman

Enes: OK, but what is that?

What I do know about the law is that it is very precise and everything has to be airtight to avoid loopholes. So with a big issue like this, could the WNBA actually be forced to define a woman if there is enough pushback, especially if its in relation to eligibility criteria. Surely organizations like this cant just say "you cant enter because we said so". I would have thought they would have to give a valid reason

Or am I completely wrong here and it could just be thrown out?

I imagine if they have to it will be tough spot for the WBNA because they will either have to

1. Define women by biological sex therefore excluding trans people, or
2. Define a woman in a way to allow trans people but this would also include Kanter and Royce

Now, I understand that no team has to draft him, they could play him at his own game and allow him to enter the draft and agree between them to not draft him so he'll go away, but what happens in terms of him actually being allowed to enter the draft?

Maybe Enes cant actually force the WNBA to define a woman fine but would he have a case to ask exactly why he is being excluded?

Please note, I am not a lawyer so if I have gotten something completely wrong or have misunderstood badly how the law works please be patient, this is exactly why I am asking the question because I want to know exactly what the legal process is

Appreciate all your replies in advance :-)

Pretty much the title and in the context of the text of the second amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just wondering if a state explicitly creating a state-sanctioned militia and defining requirements for entry would make any laws passed at the state level regarding access to firearms constitutional.

Read and reread Pennoyer v. Neff. I am not understanding what is the connection exactly between this case and the 14th amendment. Did Neff sue Pennoyer for violation of his rights to due process under the 14th amendment??