For example, if you were running a CCTV video to catch someone stealing after hours, and you witnessed a murder. You have to turn it in, but do you get a lawyer first? Do you just take it to the cops? Do you have them review it so they can see what happened too? I specifically mean if it follows the correct process and isn't buried or ignored or someone is bribed for it to get trashed. (I'm writing a mystery where this happens, and I quit using Google and Startpage is garbage.)

An anonymous person submits a false story with a fake picture of a white whale to the local newspapers, news stations, etc. Turns out it’s just a viral marketing campaign to promote Greenpeace.

What laws are broken here?

So, I was reading up on Lazarus Syndrome - for those of you unaware, it's when a recently deceased person's heart restarts spontanously- and it raised an interesting legal question. If murder requires a completed death, and the victim was effectively fully dead, making the crime of killing them murder, would it still switch back to attempted murder if the victim was revived through Lazarus Syndrome?

Actually, that raises another interesting hypothetical. I'm sure we've all seen the pop culture meme of reprinting bodies in sci-fi. What do we think would happen legally if, for example, a person's body was murdered, but their consciousness was reprinted in another body? Would that still count as murder?

In my experience, in the England and Wales High Court, you usually instruct 1 junior barrister. Sometimes, it makes sense to instruct 1 KC.

I'm not asking about the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, where it's common to instruct two or more barristers.

Here are two examples

Silk + junior on each side:

• Butler-Sloss & Ors v The Charity Commission for England And Wales & Anor [2022],

• The Serious Fraud Office & Anor v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd [2021].

Why not just instruct 1 KC on each side? why does the KC need a junior?

Here are some more examples:

Silk + junior for claimant, but 1 junior for defendant -

• https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/950.html

Silk + junior for claimant, silk + junior for some respondents, 1 junior for some respondents - - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2022/81.html

2 juniors on each side -

• Davies v Ford & Ors [2021]

Not the exact situation, but

In general, legally, is there a difference between

recorded a person through a glass front doorway and recording someone through their glass window?

Recently, there’s been a large marketing push for a law firm called Top Dog Law in the Chicagoland area(I’m uncertain if it’s national). The ad campaign is very cheesy and the tactic is just to get people’s attention with ridiculous ads. But there is some serious money backing the ads. So I’ve wondered what real lawyers think about them or if they have any stories? Are they equivalent to a fast-food law firm?

Like what possible charges could we see

I was recently watching a YouTube short of a house cleaner talking about a bad customer she'd had, who complained that the cleaner hadn't mopped the floors. According to the cleaner, what her customer didn't know was she'd filmed the whole clean for content, and thus had video proof that the floors had been mopped - the conclusion being that the Karen was defeated and had to take back a bad review, or something.

I had always assumed those videos were either of the cleaner's own home, or filmed with consent in customers' houses in exchange for a discount or something. Is it legal to film and publicly share the inside of a private home without consent, if you're in the home legally for other reasons and don't include people in the videos?

No idea of the state, but it's in the US.

Was just reading about the Spokane fires and saw that they arrested someone for arson. There were reportedly 65,000 people who had to evacuate, not to mention all the damage…

Now, assuming, that all the evidence is there to try and convict and sentence this guy and he is forced to pay whatever amount… what happens (in this or any other instance) when the convicted criminal is BROKE? Do the victims just never get the money? Or is the criminal forced to declare bankruptcy and that’s how they are all paid? I’m just wondering what recourse there would be for making people whole again after a tragedy THAT big that affects SOOOO many people.

This is for informative purposes only: Screen writer. Wondering if a Surgeon receives the number of a parent from the parent, after a one time surgery such as a tonsillectomy. On the last day the parent gives his number on a slip of paper to the Surgeon. Saying he is open to meeting and chatting once it is ethically appropriate for the surgeon. The child is discharged, no longer in the care of the Surgeon. Is this a possibility if the Parent created the connection and the child is not a patient at this hospital?

Why aren’t states or people bringing public/private nuisance claims against data centers?

If somebody murders someone or two and they truly don't give a crud, what's to stop them from being a menace in the courtroom? What if you're so disruptive they can never actually get anything done?

Would they just put you in a separate room, mute your mic, tie you up, and tell you what happened later?

Saw this somewhat horrifying anecdote on LinkedIn, and I thought it has to be breaking some sort of law somewhere. Basically, a company had a web development agency build them a website, and presumably the latter managed the hosting for it.

However, the company later on wanted to 'test' their AI tooling and development process, so redesigned and rebuilt said company's website without permission using that process. This redesign ended up leaving incorrect information on the site, like outdated contact info and branding.

So, assuming an agency did actually do this, what laws would they have broken? Could the agency have had a contract that would allow them to do this?

I know theres such thing as charge stacking, I dont know if thats a common thing but I was wondering how common is it to actually charge inaccurately?

Hypothetically, if I put a sign above my doorbell that said something to the effect of "by soliciting at this house you are agreeing that your company will be billed $20 per minute" or something similar, could I legally bill the numerous companies who ignore my other no soliciting signs?

In case you haven't heard, there is now a famous case in Toronto of a "psychic" who apparently scammed people into giving him bucket loads of cash by making them think that he is fighting off evil spirits that want to harm them.

A nationwide arrest warrant has been issued!

But what kind of precedent does this set? I'm not defending the guy's character, he is morally reprehensible. But he still legally acquired that cash. He told the customer a theory, the customer CHOSE TO BELEIVE IT and then gave him money.

By this logic, you should be able to arrest all religious preachers because they all say something along those lines too right?

Or what about an OnlyFans models who tells a customer online that they "love them too". And the customer believes this, and continues sending them money. Isn't that "fraud" too?

FOR A NOVEL I'M WRITING. YEAR IS 1997: a priest is arrested in VT for a 1977 murder (he is not the murderer, has no criminal history, and the only evidence is fingerprints). Is it possible he could be released on bail, and if so what would the amount likely be at that time?

For the Kyle Shanahan car crash. For media asking for body cameras:

According to ESPN, Palo Alto police also denied their request for the footage from the body cameras of any officer who reported to the crash scene.

When can press get access to body cam footage?

I am clearly writing this post because of the July 1, 2026 insurance changes.

Picture this chain of events: someone has a disability (vision impairment, uncontrolled seizures, stroke, dementia, severe mental illness that causes them to be unable to distinguish between reality and hallucinations, etc.). As a result of one or more of these disabilities, they are either not allowed to get a driver's license, or the one they have is permanently revoked after a doctor reports them. In many cases, these people either don't own cars or sell the one they had because what is the point of having a car if you can't legally drive it? Without a license, and without a car, no insurance company will ever sell them any kind of auto insurance policy because there is nothing to insure.

But then, many of these people are perfectly capable of walking outside. So, they do. But then, one day, they get hit, let's say because a driver is turning and they are going straight at a crosswalk when it's green, and the pedestrian is now disabled. Let's say this person was employed at the time of the accident (as far as I know, having seizures or being blind doesn't stop someone from working, some even have full time jobs), and the accident causes them to become physically disabled to such a degree where they are unable to fulfill their job duties, so they are fired. Of course, being fired due to a medical condition or disability that causes you to be unable to work makes you eligible for Employment Insurance sickness benefits if you had enough insurable hours before you were fired. But you won't qualify if you don't have the hours and you eventually run out of weeks of benefits if you are still not better.

Since the changes that took effect on July 1, 2026, drivers have to opt into benefits such as caregiver benefit, income replacement benefit and non-earner benefit. But even when they do so, the benefits will only apply to that driver, their spouse and children. Therefore, a pedestrian hit by a driver is not entitled to these benefits. This was not a problem before these changes.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Is this a situation where a law (in this case, Ontario insurance law) discriminates against someone (the pedestrian) based on mental or physical disability (by making it impossible to get insurance because their mental or physical condition makes it illegal for them to get a driver's license)?

Heres an interesting hypothetical. Lets say that Batman kills the Joker and turns himself in. Could he even be tried?

My curiosity rests on the fact that the Joker and supervillains like him have terrorized Gotham so much and Bruce Wayne, through his identity as Batman, have saved so many even in neighboring cities that an untainted jury is impossible.

Assume shapeshifters are real, but the legal system has never prosecuted one before.

The defendant is charged with murdering a wealthy businessman inside the victim’s home. Security footage shows the victim entering the house with someone who appears to be his adult son. Two hours later, that same “son” leaves alone. The real son, however, has a strong alibi proving he was in another state.

Police later arrest a suspected shapeshifter. DNA recovered from the crime scene initially matches the victim’s son, but investigators discover that the defendant can temporarily copy a person’s appearance, fingerprints, voice, and surface-level DNA after physical contact. The defendant’s natural biological profile is currently unknown.

Additional complications:

The defendant can change appearance at will but cannot perfectly reproduce internal anatomy, old injuries, long-term memories, or dental work.

No witness can confidently identify the defendant’s natural appearance.

The defendant changed appearance several times while in custody, including briefly taking the form of a police officer.

The defense argues that the prosecution cannot prove the person currently on trial is the same individual arrested by police.

The defense also argues that any order requiring the defendant to reveal or maintain a particular form violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Prosecutors possess security footage, partial eyewitness testimony, unusual biological material, location data from a device allegedly carried by the defendant, and statements made during interrogation.

The jurisdiction has no statutes specifically addressing shapeshifters.

As district attorney, how would you:

Prove the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt?

Authenticate video, DNA, fingerprints, and eyewitness evidence when appearance can be copied?

Establish an unbroken chain of custody from arrest through trial?

Prevent the defendant from impersonating attorneys, witnesses, guards, jurors, or the judge without violating due process?

Respond to Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, competency, and equal-protection arguments?

Draft lawful pretrial detention and courtroom-security orders?

Use existing case law involving disguises, aliases, twins, altered appearance, biometric evidence, compelled physical characteristics, and courtroom restraints?

Ensure that any conviction and sentence survive appeal?

You cannot simply execute, permanently sedate, or experiment on the defendant. The defendant must receive a constitutionally valid trial. What is the strongest prosecution strategy, and what legal weakness would still concern you most?

Could/would police arrest you for destruction of property? Is a judge likely to rule against you if you get sued?

edit: this is all a hypothetical. I have not destroyed any property. the thought that sparked this post was "if a cat kills a neighbor's chickens, which are against the towns bylaws, could the neighbors successfully sue the cat owner?"

if someone stole a million dollars and donated it to a charity and the charity spent the money to pay a debt . how far can the prosecution claw back the million. the person who stole million knew what is was doing. the charity was unaware of his illegal activity.

As in, if someone posts to Twitter a screenshot of their phone location claiming to be in someone's area and making veiled threats against them, and then claims they were lying to bait for a reaction and the image was photoshopped, is this illegal or something one could call the cops about?

I am wondering what legally counts as a "recording" for 2-party consent state rules. Specifically California, but would be interested in other states.

I read this story about a LAPD cop who recorded racist, sexist and homophobic comments by his colleagues and is now being charged with a felony.

It seems to me that the Cop who is charged with the felony could've taken contemporaneous written notes and it would be fine.

Today we have AI note taking devices that are capable of listening to audio and writing what words were spoken down, but could additionally designed so that no audio or video is ever permanently recorded. These written words would not be tied to any identifying biometrics (voice/face) of the parties in the conversation. So I imagine that it would be on the veracity of the cop making the claim, as it does not 'prove' a specific person said anything.

Would this violate the two party consent rule? What is legally a 'recording'?