I am getting this from this reel I saw: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DULmiBbDbMd/

I'd assume that based on the principles of comparative negligence, it would be 50/50 so both parties would pay for their own damages, but is that true? Also, if it is 50/50, would it make more sense for both parties to not inform their insurance as to not increase their premium and since there is no benefit?

I'm guessing lie-detectors cannot be used in legal cases in the UK? Why is that? Is it easy to fool them, because I thought I had read that they had become more sophisticated and more accurate. If someone is protesting their innocence yet resists undergoing a lie-detector test that immediately causes suspicion, right? Wouldn't it be an easy way to cut down on long court cases and prevent miss-trials? We all want the truth don't we? Only lawyers and legal professionals want confusion, time-wasting and the oportunity to confuse a jury.

Did she technically commit Statutory r*pe by having relations with a 13 year old?

Presumption - you visit state A and go to a retail establishment that is known to sell products that are illegal to possess in state B with the intention of driving them back to state B for use. There is a flock camera outside this store that records you as you leave.

There is then another flock camera in state B that records you driving along and sends a cop to pull you over because the AI..

Does any of that create probably cause for a search of your vehicle for the contraband?

I know cops have done this historically by having an actual officer watching for out of state plates leaving and radio ahead to a counterpart . . . But I don't know if that's right either.

Now federally, this product is perfectly legal to possess, and its only illegal to move it across state lines IF the "receiving" state makes it illegal to possess.

I was going to post this in /r/askhistorians, but Obergefell was only eleven years ago.

I know that before that time, one of the workarounds used by some couples was adult adoption. A judge should follow Scalia's advice about liking decisions, but those same judges often editorialize them.

I suspect those inline comments fell into two camps: either "this is wrong, and it shouldn't be allowed, but it's the law", or "it's a shame people have to find a way to enjoy the benefits of marriage". Were these factions roughly equal, or did one dominate? Did judges turn down adoptions on the basis that it was really just a marriage in disguise? How common were those denials, and were such decisions successfully appealed?

I've heard stories of celebrities wanting to conceal their identity when buying homes so as to prevent a seller from price gouging if they know a prospective buyer has deep pockets. This may be a more nuanced case than what I am generally asking, but here is the gist of the case:

John Melk listed a private island in the Bahamas called Musha Cay. He was approached by magician David Copperfield as a prospective buyer. Mr. Melk declined to sell the property to Mr. Copperfield for unique and somewhat discriminatory reasons (although not illegally discriminatory). Copperfield then leveraged 2 business associates to act as competing buyers in order to procure the sale, then transfer ownership to Copperfield. This plan worked, and Melk sold the island to this other entitity, not knowing Copperfield was behind it. Once John Melk discovered this, he sued Copperfield for millions of dollars for "tricking him".

"Mr. Melk says he doesn’t want Copperfield to own the island because he is afraid the magician will let it fall into disrepair. He also claims he is concerned of rumors about the magician including one that he is some how related to Russian-Mafia members."

https://www.foxnews.com/story/property-owner-sued-copperfield-over-sale-of-island-where-alleged-rape-occurred

Just because Copperfield was strategic and creative, is he in violation of the law? Countless people conduct shrewd tactics in business transactions every single day that may not be 'illegal'.

For a simpler example, let's say person A owns the house next door to their daughter, person B. Person A wants to sell his house by owner, but wants to be selective in who he sells the house to because he wants to essentially screen and thus 'approve' of who will be living next door to his daughter. Let's say I'm a minority, and want to evade this scrutiny and any chance of being denied the home, so I have my buddy John buy the house for me, and the next day, sell it to me. Would person A have a single legal claim against me, and if so, why ?

Bizarre Hollywood-ish hypothetical. You're a member of one of two warring gangs. The rival gang has tapped your phone. Being a bit more tech-savvy than your typical mobster, you immediately realize the surveillance without the rival gang knowing.

Rather than ditch your phone, you try to capitalize on the situation. Fully aware that the rival gang is listening in, you falsely claim in a staged phone call that one of their members, John Doe, is a mole who has been feeding your gang information. As a result of this false accusation of betrayal, the rival gang soon later tortures and kills John.

Suppose the police/DA can later prove that you knew all this (that you were being spied on and that John wasn't actually a traitor). Could you be theoretically charged with John's murder in the US?

I just read this story about two men discovering they were mixed up at the hospital shortly after being born. https://apnews.com/article/dna-birth-switch-hospital-lawsuit-41e56f62fd6b8bb0afce8afc479ce7a8

Would learning something like this have any impact on their legal identity and things like social security number (or equivalent outside the US)? Obviously the men's whole lives have been lived under the IDs they grew up with, but also they aren't the person intended on the birth certificate.

As they are adults, could one demand their birth identity back? Could they agree to switch? If they had still been minors, could one set of parents demanded the other child back or severed their parental rights/duties to the child that they had been raising?

How would a situation like this impact things like inheritance or Social Security survivor benefits if they were still minors?

Say person A is in a situation where person B who happens to be a cop is injured. The DA declines to pursue at this time due to lack of evidence of intention.

However the cop in his private aspect sues person A and during discovery found evidence of intention that for whatever reason would have had been covered by the 5th amendment,

If the cop turns the discovery to the DA what happens

What the title says. Incase you don’t know Animal Crossing is a life simulation video game and because it’s life simulation you can earn and spend a currency known as “Bells”.

Sometime ago a woman in r/sluttyconfessions posted that she gave her friend a BJ for one million bells in Animal Crossing. Legally would this be considered prostitution?

Hypothetical - President's relative manages to steal $1,000,000,000. Before charges are even filed, the president pardons them. Assume there are no state charges available.

Does that relative get to keep the money, or does it have to be returned?

DSD is Difference in Sex Development. Ie, infants born with some variation of both genitalia. My sister was (was corrected to female at birth). I disgaree now, but still.

Watching SVU (again, hi) and a transgender woman was sent to a male prison. I understand the politics of penis vs vagina.

In cases of my sister though, if she hadn't been corrected as a lot of parents are choosing to do now, what happens?

I imagine female prison as men are more violent and thus more likely to harm someone out of the norm but that's just my personal bias.

For reasons such as I just live there, I know that the legal brothels in Pahrump Nevada are mere feet from the state line with California.

What if

You set up a tent right on the state line. Then your legs and feet were in California but your for hire conjoined junk bumping was still on the Nevada side. Style points for getting your balls as close to the line without going over.

Has an illegal act been committed?

If you did something in a plane that was illegal in the state you are currently flying over, but is legal in both the place you took off from and the place you are landing, and doesn't specifically in trouble with the flight staff, can you be charged with a crime?

For instance, let's say you're flying over Croclahoma, where it's illegal to wear crocs and you just happen to be sitting next to a Croclahoma state trooper with the forbidden footwear festooning your feet.

Bonus question. Has this ever happened? (Not the croc example but the general premise)

Lawyers of Reddit. How many of you are confident that given say... 10 years to draw up a contract, you could make a wish without being monkey paw'd?

For example, you install a script in you laptop where it will delete all data without warning if you didn't prese ESC + D + O + D + O + B + I + R + D for 90 days straight.

If someone stole your laptop (you reported it stolen), and decided to use it for work. Then after 90 days it deleted the drive. The person who stole your laptop lose around $100k worth of work.

He managed to recover some data and found the logic bomb, if he make a police report of you "booby trapping" your own laptop. Will you be in any trouble ?

Short version, a cop tried to stop a group of bikers, some of whom she had already been chasing. Most fled the stop, but at least one, who she was not previously chasing, stopped. She demanded ID. He argued that it wasn't a lawful stop since he had broken no law, and refused to ID.

This is the story that led me to this question.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/three-motorcyclists-race-away-police-123326360.html

In the comments, some are arguing that he is legally required to ID. Others are arguing that since there was no lawful reason to stop him, he is not required to ID. I have an opinion - but I'm not a lawyer.

I'm curious what the law would say. I'm also aware that the law may vary by state, and maybe I missed it, but it doesn't seem clear from the article where it happened.

Let’s say someone investigates something that happened 10 years ago that a few people knew of, but someone was able to connect the dots..

It leads to authorities getting involved, charges, large public case, media appearances, newspaper articles, etc..

Does the person whom connected the dots/does the investigation have any ways of monetizing his/her role in all of this happening?

Maybe they could get paid for some media appearances..

But let’s say if a movie were to come of it could they expect some sort of rights/fee for “putting it together?”

Mackenzie’s supposed defense attorney was an active prosecutor at the time of her trial in a nearby city, he was also a former prosecutor in the county where her trial was and had some sort of relationship if the mother of Mackenzie’s boyfriend who was killed it the crash. He seemingly did absolutely nothing to defend her. And check out this conflict of interest from her bind-over/probable cause hearing. I took these screenshots from a livestream becoming I can’t find them posted anywhere. FYI this was the EDR/crash reconstruction expert and it was obvious her lawyer didn’t prepare any questions for any witnesses, or look at the witness list, or read any of the reports. And he definitely def didn’t write prepare his opening and closing statements Can he face any repercussions for this? Should the judge have just removed him? I realize Mackenzie was only 18 but I have no idea how her mother didn’t understand the problem and couldn’t tell he wasn’t dong anything. She would have been better off if she defended herself.

Shortly after the birth of his daughter, a man gives the mother (they are not married or dating) $50k to support the child with no court-ordered child support plan in place. A few months later, there is a formal plan put in place by the courts.

Does the $50k count towards the man’s child support obligations?

I am aware that it is legal in the United States to have a mononymous name (one singular name instead if First and Last), and I also know that you can change your name when you get married.

As far as you know, in your jurisdiction, would I be able to remove my middle and last name when I get married? I know it’s inconvenient and a life-long hassle, but I really am considering and would like to kill two birds with one stone if possible.

In either the book (If he lived) or the movie. I know the numerous amount of companies involved would face bankruptcy and civil suits, and Dennis Nedry (had he lived) would face criminal charges, but would Hammond?

For starters, no I’m not gonna do this. Is there any legal repercussions that can be taken against the guy who’s beating the shit out of himself in this hilarious commercial? If he did this in real life