yourdayincourtblog

[yourdayincourtblog]

BB Guns, Safety, & You: A Tragic Lesson

Pictured: A BB Gun and box of BB-pellets. People have treated these as toys for years, but they can be used to kill.  

BB guns are a type of rifle that are treated as toys since they only use air to shoot small metal balls, rather than relying on the explosive force that gives bullets their fatal speeds.   

An unfortunate incident involving a BB gun in Tampa, Florida led to a 17 year old dying after he was shot in the eye with one.  Although the majority of accidents involving BB guns are the result of the gun handlers failing to use eye protection, that wasn’t the case here.  The young man died as a result of his family-friend in the back seat - who was 8 years old - accidentally causing the gun to go off.

The two had been riding in the car with the 17-year-old friend-of-the-family in the front seat, and the adult driver’s children (including the 8 year old) riding in the back.  The incident began as the adult driver pulled up to an ATM and exited the car, leaving the minors unsupervised.

The youngest in the back seat, the 8-year-old was attempting to move the BB gun not knowing that it was loaded.  When the child moved the gun, it fired off a BB striking the 17-year-old front-passenger in the eye.

BB guns are widely seen as toys.  In reality, they are capable of major damage to property and (as is the case here) to lives. The companies that manufacture these devices often recommend the use of eye protection and to keep them out of the reach of young children.  Keeping a BB gun in the back seat of a car and accessible to unsupervised minors is a scenario that is not recommended.

The 8-year old who caused the gun to go off didn’t mean for it to do that.  Reports say the child explained they had been moving it out of the way so that they wouldn’t step on it and cause it to break when the incident occurred.

Regardless of the circumstance, there is a 17-year-old boy who lost his life because of an oversight of the adult in the car keeping a BB gun in their back seat.

Questions:

1: Should anyone be charged in the death of the 17 year old? Who is really to blame, the 8 year old, or the adult driver who had left the BB gun in the back seat to begin with? Explain your answer.

 2: If the adult driver had left a real firearm in the back seat, what would change about the case? 

 3: In the state of Nevada, what are the minimum and maximum consequences would the adult face for leaving a minor in the back seat with a loaded firearm accessible?

 4: If the boy had been an adult themselves and shot a minor, what are the maximum and minimum charges they could face? 

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/11/us/teenager-bb-gun-death-trnd/index.html

 Contributed by: Joseph Motta

[yourdayincourtblog]

ATM Stolen From Courthouse: Criminals Cash Out on The Law!

Thieves in one Texas community attempted to steal courthouse ATMs three times in just one week!  During the third attempt, thieves used a stolen pickup truck to smash the back door of the courthouse, attached some sort of strap to the ATM and dragged the machine out of the building.

It is unknown if the suspects who stole the ATM on the third attempt were behind the previous two incidents, but the timing is certainly suspicious.  Whether they were the same people or different ones, the people behind each of those incidents will face serious consequences once they are caught!

If the thieves had taken the time to think about their actions or if they’d been fortunate enough to know some basic things about the law, they’d realize the risks that come with getting caught involved with these heists are ridiculous!    

Very few criminal charges result in a trial for the defendant.  That means the accused rarely has a chance of being acquitted (being declared ‘not guilty’ of the crime he or she has been charged with).   That’s because trials are expensive and don’t guarantee an outcome.  Most of the time, lawyers for both sides will negotiate a deal to avoid a trial and to guarantee they get the best outcome they could hope for if things did not go their way in court.  In criminal cases, a lot of time that can mean the person being charged still ends up going to prison, they just go for less time than they would if they had been found guilty in a trial.  

One of the tools a prosecutor has to motivate defense teams to negotiate is their ability to ‘stack charges’.  In the ATM story, you might think “Ok, the thieves will be charged with stealing the ATM”.  It’s not that simple though!

Consider all these things that we already know about the ATM theft incidents:

- The thieves stole a truck to use for the ATM theft

- The thieves used a stolen truck to commit the ATM theft

- The thieves were trespassing in the courthouse after hours

- The thieves broke into a property

- The thieves damaged a property

- The thieves broke into a courthouse, which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves damaged a courthouse which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves used a vehicle to intentionally damage a courthouse

- The thieves stole the court’s property

- The thieves stole an item worth thousands of dollars

- The thieves stole an ATM, which can also be considered a form of bank robbery

- The thieves may have spent the money in the ATM

Those aren’t just 12 facts about the case – they are 12 possible charges that could be filed against a person for one criminal incident. That means the person would be charged with 12 crimes from the one event!  That also means the defendant would face 12 different punishments if they were found guilty of each charge!

Don’t forget: Thieves had attempted to steal ATM’s from courthouses in the area 3 times that week!  If someone was convicted on all of the charges for just one of those incidents, an angry judge could sentence them to spend what would likely be the rest of their lives in prison.  If they were found guilty of all the crimes related to all 3 ATM incidents that week,  things might be even worse for them!

1)    What is the minimum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

2)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

3)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for all three ATM incidents, if they happened in Nevada?

4)    What federal laws were broken by the ATM thieves, and what is the maximum federal punishment they could receive?

5)    If the thieves were caught and found guilty of all charges related to the final robbery in Nevada’s state court, and then they were found guilty of all the possible federal charges in Federal Court, what is the maximum penalty they would face?

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions. The article this piece was originally sourced from is available here if you’d like to get a few more details first:

http://abc7chicago.com/thieves-target-texas-courthouse-atm-for-3rd-time-in-a-week/3365855/

Contributed By- J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Somebody Toucha My Spaghet!  Police, Pasta, & Problems

Spaghetti & meatballs is a common dish that satisfies people’s hunger across the globe. Popular as this pasta dish might be, one man’s craving for the staple food led him to end up in some hot water… with the law!

A man in Pennsylvania was craving the classic dish so much so that he broke into someone’s home and stole a pot of meatballs and sauce ( a crime in itself – meatballs and sauce with no carbs?!?  Get over yourself man!).

The victim (the person whose house was broken into) said he came home to the man in front of his house covered in red sauce. When he went inside he noticed the pot of meatballs with red sauce he’d been preparing was missing, and so he called the police.

The police arrived at the scene and began following up leads, since the suspect who had since ran off.  They eventually found him at his home – in the next city over - with his face and clothing still covered in the sauce from the pot!

The thief was charged with burglary, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal trespassing (when you enter somebody else’s property without their permission).  On top of all those charges related to the theft, he had already been “wanted on a warrant for failing to appear for a prior incident”.

What penalties could the thief face for the theft by unlawful taking charge? What penalties could he face for the burglary charge? What penalties could he face for the criminal trespassing charge?   As you answer this question, keep in mind that the level of consequences people face relating to theft and property damage can be tied to the value of the property that was damaged or stolen.   So, how much is a pot of meatballs and sauce worth?  Do you count the time that goes into preparing the dish?  Cooking is an emotional process for some people – does that increase the value?   Give us a few ideas of how you would account for the value of the stolen (and technically, destroyed) property.  Then, let us know if the changing value leads to a higher possible maximum penalty under the law!  Bonus points for those of you who reply with the punishments in Nevada compared to those in Pennsylvania, where the pasta sauce was pilfered!

As always, please explain your answers.  Before that, you can prepare to answer the questions by getting more information from the original article that inspired this piece.  You can find that here:  http://www.newsweek.com/meatball-theft-crime-sauce-red-pennsylvania-823775

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[yourdayincourtblog]

Cat Gets Fat Stacks From Lawsuit

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.  

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn't promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

Questions to Consider:

1.a) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

1.b) Have you seen or heard of any cases where someone's high or low status affected the outcome of a trial? Share details, or if you haven’t heard of a case like that occurring, explain why you think that is.

1.c.) Do you think Grumpy Cat's status was a factor in the outcome of her court case, and if so what can courts do to ensure an unbiased outcome is achieved in an otherwise fair trial?

2.a ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some specific copyright laws that protect brands from being misused by other companies?

2.b) What is the difference between licensing a product and enforcing a copyright or trademark?

3.a) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves. They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement (like the lack of social media posts, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen). If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the value that Grumpy’s company wasn’t delivering on despite being contractually obligated to do so, should they have at least had a chance to win in court?

3.b) Imagine that (A) Grenade’s extra use of Grumpy’s image was stealing even though (B) they weren’t getting what they paid for in the original agreement, and the Grenade knew that their actions could be classified as stealing.  If those were the facts, why might Grenade have still countersued Grumpy Cat Limited, and what would the possible benefits be?

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

[yourdayincourtblog]

Righting the Wrongs in Florida Rights Restoration

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott - or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.  

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated: “The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

Questions to Consider:

Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn’t believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida’s state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

-Submitted by J. Floyd

For more information or material for your answers, you can explore the original story this article was inspired by here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

[yourdayincourtblog]

Terror & Tyranny at the Theme Park: Family Assaulted at Six Flags

Amusement parks go above and beyond to entertain their guests during Halloween each year.  In Fright Fest at Six Flags, everyone is up for a good scare. The extra scares are appreciated, but the fall season also seems to bring an increase in bad behavior by some park attendees.  What nobody wants is to come home injured or assaulted, but unfortunately, that fear became a reality for one innocent family.

The family - an elderly couple and their 12 year old son - was attempting to ride one of the thrill rides at the park. While waiting in line, a group of friends cut in front of the family.  Skipping over the fact that the group had cut in front of them, the woman asked the group to at least stop using unpleasant language around her child.

That is when an attack began.

The 12 year old boy was physically seized upon by the group that had cut in front of his family. The mother and father attempted to intervene, but were quickly overwhelmed by the sizable group.  The family continued to be assaulted with punches, kicks, and stomps by their attackers until they submitted to the violence and fell to the ground.

Security at Six Flags broke up the attack quickly after a passersby reported the incident.  The attackers spread out in an attempt to escape, but fortunately most of them were prevented from getting away after security cornered them in the parking lot.  

Local police reported to the scene, and a total of nine suspects were arrested & charged.   Later on, the city’s police chief commented that more suspects may have gotten away.  With this concern in mind, the police urged anyone with evidence to submit it to them. As the police chief explained “We know there’s a video out there. People had their phones out, but we have not gotten any additional video yet.”

Following the incident the family was rushed off and received care for their injuries, though eventually all three of them were discharged.  

You can learn more and read the original story here:  https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/frightening-fest-family-attacked-beaten-by-teenagers-at-six-flags/ Questions & Conversation Part 1: Amusement parks have a lot of discretion in deciding what they allow to occur on their property.  They have a duty to protect those who come, which is why they deal with high safety standards and inspections for their rides.   The parks also allow a wide range of people to come in and enjoy themselves though.  

1.A) Is the process to enter an amusement park too easy?  

1.B) Should Six Flags be held financially or criminally responsible for the family’s injuries? What makes them responsible or not responsible?   1.C.i) If you think Six Flags is responsible, what can they do to prevent attacks like these in the future?   1.C.ii) If you don’t believe they’re responsible, what laws absolve them of that responsibility?  

Part 2:  Research your response! 

2) The family of the incident experienced emotional and physical damage from the attack.  What consequences will the assailants that were caught face?

Part 3:  According to the park, attacks like these are uncommon, “This is rare.” was the official line from park representatives, yet still the park was prepared for possible incidents like these, having doubled security patrols during holiday seasons.  Meanwhile, even with the double patrols, not all of the assailants were detained. 

Consider the fact that some of the suspects were able to get away and that police are hoping cell phone footage will help identify the remaining suspects.  That means the park didn’t have sufficient security camera coverage to identify all of the assailants.  With that in mind….

3.A) Should the family place blame on Six Flags for negligence based on the failure of it’s video security?

3.B) Should seasonal events like this continue when the parks know they pose a risk of an increase in violent or otherwise troubling incidents?

3.C) Some of the attackers in the incident were minors.  Assuming their parents weren’t with them in the park, should the park be held responsible for allowing large groups of minors to be there without proper supervision?

3.D) What rules should be made for youth at parks, and should there be laws establishing standards for these rules (explain your answer - why or why not)?

3.E) Should security keep a closer eye on young adults at parks? What would lead them to be to strike out like this in such a large force?

  - Submitted by J. Floyd

[yourdayincourtblog]

Would You Like a Side of Gender Discrimination with Your Order?

An upscale French restaurant, L’Orangerie, in West Hollywood, California became the epicenter of gender equality politics in 1980 after a woman, Kathleen Bick and a man, Larry Becker, sat down for dinner and were handed two menus: one green, which was handed to the man, and one white, which was handed to the woman.

The white menu or “ladies menu” had the items offered, however, no prices were listed. The green menu had the same items, however the prices were listed on that one.  For example, the veal medallion was $26 (equivalent to $82 today).

The different menus reflected a European tradition of assuming that the man would be paying for the woman’s meal. Some high-end restaurants in the United States followed this tradition as well. This was distasteful to the pair and they left the restaurant without ordering.  Kathleen Bick stated that she felt “humiliated and incensed”, when given a ladies menu.

The restaurant owner, when asked by attorney Gloria Allred, why the difference in menus, said “It is the French way”.  The restaurant owners’ non-answer and refusal to end the dual menu practice resulted in a lawsuit, which based on discrimination, violated California’s Civil Rights Act. Statutory damages in the amount of $250 were sought, along with an end to the dual menu practice.  Allred justified her reasoning to, “it denigrated women and perpetuated negative stereotypes about them. Since when was it a restaurant’s job to decide who would be financially responsible for a meal?”

Gloria Allred was already famous for her representation of Norma McCorvey, or “Roe” in the landmark Roe v. Wade.

The restaurant owners defended their practice as the same “…tradition done in the same spirit as lighting a cigarette or standing up when she enters the room.”

The battle came to a head when Allred and her clients set up a table with an elegant place setting in front of the L’Orangerie restaurant. This was covered extensively by television, radio and print media.  The strategy worked.  Soon after, the restaurant ended their dual-menu practice and the lawsuit was dropped in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Restaurants in the United States that still practiced the dual menu, which were few and far between already, were warned in a 1981 publication that they may lose in court if they continued this practice.  It is not known if any restaurants in the United States that still follow this practice. If they do, let’s hope that Gloria Allred doesn’t know about it.

Tell us What You Think: Case-law is a form of ‘precedent’, meaning that when a unique question about the law is taken up by courts, the outcome of the case becomes a rule of sorts. If similar cases come up in the future, the first case’s outcome determines how the others should be decided.  It’s kind of like an accidental new law (not exactly, but let’s keep things simple).   In this story, the restaurant changed their policy before a court could decide on whether the practice was prohibited by existing discrimination laws.

The Las Vegas Athletic Club was sued by a man whose wife was offered free enrollment and he was still charged the enrollment fee. He filed a Civil Rights complaint against the gym, claiming discrimination because of his gender. This matter did not go to court, however it was ruled discriminatory by the Nevada Equal Rights Commission.  What about the Pink Tax? Google the Pink Tax.

Do you think the two plaintiffs in this case exaggerated their reaction to the dual menu practice or were they justified in feeling discriminated against? Would you have sued the restaurant?  

[yourdayincourtblog]

Have you ever caught yourself not paying attention to your surroundings because of an electronic device? Mayor of Honolulu, Kirk Caldwell, has signed a bill to make it illegal to look down at an electronic device while crossing the street or highway. The ban is aimed at making the streets safer and ensuring that pedestrians pay more attention to their surroundings. A first violation gets you a $15 to $35 fine. It's a $35 to $75 fine for a second offense. A third offense could cost you as much as $99.

This is something that was aimed at public safety. Do you think it is likely to take off as a law in cities across the United States? Let us know your thoughts on this new law.

https://www.cnet.com/news/honolulu-bans-texting-while-crossing-road/#ftag=CAD590a51e

[yourdayincourtblog]

No, It’s Not Funny: Jokers, Hate Crimes, & You

Pictured: A screengrab showing an offensive ‘joke’-post to the website Craigslist in which two high school students were shown under the headline ‘Two Slaves for Sale’.

No matter if something is done with an intent to hurt someone or just casually as a joke, if one person’s simple fun results in another person’s harm, that action may be considered legally as an act of bullying, criminal harassment, or both.  Obviously being the victim of bullying is never fun.  If that fact is not enough to stop someone from reconsidering their actions, they should keep in mind that unintentional harm is still harm in the eyes of the law.  Consider this incident:

A student at a Florida’s Fleming Island High School (who remains unnamed due to his age), took a picture of two African American females in his class and then posted an ad featuring that picture on Craigslist.  The ad had been placed in the ‘Home and Garden’ section of the used goods website and had been titled “Two Slaves for Sale,” [as seen in the picture above].  

The post went viral overnight as hundreds of complaints were made on social media. Reports say that the high school student responsible for the ad was identified and then immediately expelled from school and sent to an alternative education program offered by his district.

The post however, was not the first incident involving heavy racial ties for the Fleming Island High School.  The school’s students had been reporting issues and incidents of “racial targeting” on their campus (by fellow students and by school staff) for years before the craigslist incident took place.

One of the students pictured in the ad, Skye Fefee, told reporters that she was deeply disturbed by the act and wondered how something like this could happen not only to her, but those around her too.

Regarding the school administration and how they handle racial incidents including her own, Fefee stated “The administration doesn't pay attention to this. They need to better monitor the students,".   She went on to state that her school’s administration needs to be more proactive, taking steps that prevent students from being hurt by those committing acts of hate.

The student responsible is a juvenile and wasn’t charged with any crimes. 

Despite being a juvenile, the student responsible for posting the advertisement to Craigslist was lucky to have not been charged with a crime.  Some districts would find the student criminally liable for bullying, and if the school was federally funded the student could have been risking facing federal hate crime charges (no matter his age).

   Questions:

1: This article talks about an issue involving hate speech. Should the first amendment affect hate speech? Why or why not?

2: If you or someone you know was targeted in a “joke” like this, what would you/how would you stop it?

3: Do you think the first amendment protects too much? What changes would you make or not make to the first amendment?

4. If this event had happened at your school, what are the minimum and maximum penalties the student would have faced at your school for posting that kind of hate-ad to Craigslist?

5. If this event had happened at your school, what are the minimum and maximum criminal penalties the student would have faced for posting that ad? 

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/slaves-for-sale-craiglist-ad-featuring-two-fleming-island-high-school-girls-sparks-outrage/77-434514316

Contributed by: Joseph Motta 

[yourdayincourtblog]

99 Year Old Woman Arrested... Because She Requested It!

At Project REAL, we provide field trips to Nevada’s courthouses for our state’s students.  Most of those students get to witness people in custody as they watch live criminal calendars where they also get to learn the consequences of being involved with criminal activity.  On rare occasions like slower days where there’s no appropriate criminal calendars for the students to watch, a bailiff or marshal will explain their work by demonstrating on a student and putting them in handcuffs!   While it’s fun, none of the students actually want to be arrested during their field trip (or any time after).

That wasn’t the case for one 99 year old woman from the Netherlands, who’d had ‘getting arrested’ on her bucket list.  After hearing of her request, the local police department worked to make her dream come true.  While Project REAL does not condone the desire to be arrested, we certainly support the work of local law enforcement agencies that find fun and engaging ways to interact with their local community. 

On that note, we’d love to hear your stories about fun ways law enforcement agencies have interacted with your community.  Share your stories in the comments, or read the original article at time.com the reported this story here:

http://time.com/4686302/dutch-woman-arrested-bucket-list/

[yourdayincourtblog]

Woman Sues Over Too Much Air in Candy? Yes, Really!

Do you find yourself at the movie theatre paying what seems like 4x the price for candy than what you would pay for it at a convenience store? Do you get even more frustrated when you open that candy up and find that the box was much larger than it needed to be for the contents inside?

Well, one woman had enough with what she felt was a 50% candy, 50% air ratio in her box of candy! She is suing the makers of Mike & Ike’s for false advertising. Rather than sue the movie theatres (which don’t package the candy), the woman decided to go straight to the source and sue the candy’s producers.  While it’s not a criminal matter, if the company is found to have deceptively advertised they may face legal consequences beyond any decision which may be handed down in civil court.

While the story is fun and a bit goofy (it is a story about a candy law suit after all), it also highlights the importance of understanding not just criminal law but civil law.  If you’ve been wronged in a situation, would you know if you could sue to be ‘made whole’?  The courts exist to help society maintain fairness among its members, but they can only be put to use if the citizens know how to utilize legal services.

If you’re interested in learning more about this story, consider reading the original article that appeared on CNN Money here:

http://time.com/money/4669468/mike-ike-lawsuit-just-born/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

[yourdayincourtblog]

After Teenage Mistakes, Pardons Give Second Chance to Ex-Offenders

Making a mistake is part of life and as a teenager you’re bound to make several but, making a mistake that defines your whole life when your 17 is the harsh reality for some.  Contrary to popular belief, juvenile criminal records aren’t always sealed and can follow people throughout their lives (a subject that is covered in depth in our blog ‘Rights, Decisions, & You: Stories for New Adults’).

What kinds of consequences might young offenders face?  Foremost, a young offender with a criminal record may not be able to work in certain industries (jobs that involve working with children or positions that handle money will certainly be restricted).  Even then, employers faced with choosing to hire between a candidate with a criminal record and one without one are more likely to hire the applicant without a criminal history.  Difficulty securing work can lead to other life long problems.  Without steady work, a person’s opportunity to make money is severely limited. This might lead to a life of poverty and the struggles that come with it. 

Depending on the circumstances, a juvenile record that remains unsealed may be resolved through a pardon.  The process for securing pardons for criminal histories of a minor differs from state to state, however that process is rarely short let alone easy.  If a pardon is issued an individual may have an opportunity to secure a second chance at a productive and successful life for themselves, however pardons are rare and shouldn’t be considered a guaranteed solution.

New York is changing the lives of young offenders by granting pardons in some cases.  The lesson isn’t to expect a pardon or a second chance, but rather to understand the struggle for the many individuals facing lives of constant struggle as a result of poor decisions they made as teenagers.  Consider the consequences of your actions and read more about one man’s second chance in the NPR story which originally inspired this post here:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/508369557/after-teenage-mistakes-pardons-give-second-chances-to-ex-offenders

[yourdayincourtblog]

Teen vandals sentenced to read books, write papers

It’s rare that a punishment can be inspiring but, a judge in Virginia has given a sentence to young vandals that orders them to read books and write papers. As a provider of educational resources, we find this to be a unique sentence - one that we support.  We also hope more judges will find creative ways to change and educate young offenders.

Five 16 and 17 year old boys in Virginia had been found guilty of spray painting racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic symbols on a historic building in their community. At the behest of the prosecutor on the boys’ case, the sentencing judge gave the teens - none of whom had prior records -  a list of 35 books and 14 movies with themes of race, gender and religious issues.

The boys were required to provide written reports on what they read or watched on a monthly basis, and their parents had to visit a holocaust museum with them so ‘the whole family would learn together’. 

The prosecutor explained ”"They have to write either a book report once a month of they can substitute three of of the books for a movie review, so I also gave them a list of approved movies that they can watch. And hopefully, what they get out of this year is a greater appreciation for  gender, race, religion, bigotry. And then when they go out in to the world, they are teachers."

Read the original story here and let us know your thoughts in the comments: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/teens-vandals-sentenced-to-read-books-write-papers/396055942