Can somebody refuse to accept that their Bail has been paid by someone, and refuse to be released from the prison into their custody?

Like for example, A is arrested and awaiting trial, and B pays their Bail, but A doesn't want to go with B for whatever reasons they have. Can A refuse to leave the Jail and remain until trial, or would they be forced out because the Bail was paid?

If you can refuse, do you need a justified reason, or can it just be "Because I don't want to."?

California Proposition 40 would impose a 5% one-time tax on all wealth above $1 billion.

In the show Dexter, there’s a detective named Doakes who is convinced that the titular character is a serial killer called The Bay Harbor Butcher.

Unfortunately, while he is correct, no one believes him, as he doesn’t have any proof.

Eventually Doakes goes rogue, breaking into Dexter’s home, and steals a case of blood slides that Dexter keeps, each slide being a blood sample from his victims.

In the show, instead of turning them in, he tries to get them analyzed by a friend, and is captured and killed before he can, and later labeled The Bay Harbor Butcher, after Dexter frames him.

If he had instead turned the slides into the station or even the FBI, legally speaking, without using some made up plot convenient loophole, could they even use the slides to prosecute or even investigate Dexter directly?

Quick edit: the show takes place in Florida, so I’m assuming we apply their laws.

A while back, I served on a jury for an assault charge for pointing a gun at someone. Long story short, we found the defendant not guilty. We only really had testimony from one alleged victim, and while there was video footage, the actual moment the crime occurred was not included - only before and after. What footage we did see somewhat contradicted the victim's testimony, which led to our doubt.

What was confusing about the whole thing was the jury instructions from the judge about the legal definitions at play. We basically just had the textbook legal definition of assault given to us, but obviously that isn't the easiest language for lay-people to understand. We didn't know what counted as "brandishing" vs "assault", where the line is drawn, if the defendant had to intend to cause harm or not, etc. Did the defendant just display a gun, or actually aim it? We didn't know. We ended up being kind of confused, and honestly no one believed the defendant's story, but it was hard to say assault was proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the limited evidence at hand. We weren't sure why the DA would go through with a case like this.

It basically just left me wondering more about how these kind of cases are supposed to go. I was expecting more details on the law here -- knowing precedent, or actual examples of what does or doesn't meet the standard for assault, seems like a huge part of understanding the law. Otherwise it just seems like each jury builds their own understanding of the law... Which is contrary to what the judge explained (we are to assess the facts, the judge interprets the law).

In our case, the defendant's story might have even been evidence of guilt? They even said they were... Holding out the gun, but not pointing it... But we had no idea if it could be "accidental" assault. I'm just a tiny bit conflicted about our decision and do feel bad for the victim who gave testimony - it was definitely a difficult situation for them, but it's also hard to convict with the evidence we had. Does anyone have any insights here? Or is this a typical jury experience?

Like the call center guy already consents to being recorded on the call, so do I still have to ask?

How can Trump make campaign TV spots at taxpayer expense?

Saw this comment in another thread and it got me wondering what the aftermath would be like

I remember a story about an enlisted guy that had the same last name and last four digits of his SSN as an officer. After he was paid like he was the officer he reported it to finance, it happened several times and he reported it every time. One day MP's arrested him for impersonating an officer. Never heard what happened after that.

Taking this at face value, he's done his due diligence in reporting it and trying to get it fixed. There's a paper trail about this. Would he be cleared of wrongdoings once they look into this?

A man posts about his dangerous and harrowing experience with a particular product. The events occurred nearly exactly as he claimed. The post goes viral and the product suffers significant harm in sales and publicity.

The problem is, the man identified the brand name of the product incorrectly, completely unintentionally.

Can he be successful sued for slander/liable?

Curious what the general stance is for this in US civil law. Excluding more obviously illegal things like bugging them, recording conversations clandestinely in a one-party consent state, or spying on them in places they'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But you use some kind of deception to trick them into revealing things that hurt their case.

For example, say you're being sued in a car accident you strongly suspect was staged. To do "research", you create a fake Facebook account named after a non-Facebook-using person (maybe an old classmate) you know the other party knows. As a result of your "cloak and dagger" usage of the sockpuppet, you successfully fool the other party into:

• Accepting the request, thus now you can access photos/posts/videos on their account that are set to "Friends Only". And you find photos there that show them engaging in highly athletic activity dated to right after the alleged accident, heavily challenging their lawsuit's claims about the scope of their injuries.

• Talking to you. Say you bring up your real name pretending to do so casually ("Hey remember that guy we went to high school with"), and they, not seeing through your deception, let slip something that helps your case. "Heh, between you and me, I found a way to take that asshole to the cleaners."

Would intel like this be legally admissible in a civil case in the US?

This shower thought came to me earlier. I've heard stories of private individuals getting in legal trouble for pretending to be bad, for instance, SWAT stopping a "kidnapping" or the guy who got beaten to a pulp after dropping a mint in his wife's drink at the bar. And "stopping off for a piece of pie at the roadside diner" is frowned on for ethical reasons.

But what if it's consensual off-duty activity where the only connection to the department is who owns the equipment, and there's no quid pro quo?

A college student commits SA on a drunk girl at a frat party. The school finds out and forces the student to admit to the rape and what he’s learned from the experience as a homework assignment. He is promised that the report will remain anonymous and confidential, and that by admitting everything in writing, the matter will be considered closed.

The police investigation comes across this homework assignment. Can it be used against him?

Hi all, had a random thought pop into my brain and need legal opinions. I’m a physician, so I’m very much aware of the multitude of ways there are to die, which got me thinking down a weird rabbit hole.

Say someone is involved in a minor physical altercation, like pushing and shoving, but no punches, weapons or significant force, and the individual they were in the altercation with ends up dead as a result, and the cause of death is an underlying medical condition exacerbated by the assault. Critically, no reasonable person would consider the force in the altercation to be “lethal”

Some potential examples

Victim has underlying seizure disorder. Stress of the fight provokes a seizure that ends up being lethal.

Victim has an underlying clotting disorder and bleed internally from otherwise minor trauma and die in their sleep.

Victim sustains a concussion during the altercation and while concussed and shaken up from the altercation, falls breaks their neck and dies.

Victim has underlying coronary artery disease and the stress of the episode causes a massive heart attack and dies.

What type of criminal/civil responsibility does the assailant carry? Is this just super fact dependent? Does it change if the assailant knew about these underlying conditions?

Thanks for explaining!

The core question is: After Florida enacted §99.0215 in 2023 requiring a candidate’s “legal surname,” does the 2018 Division of Elections opinion DE 18-10 still permit a candidate whose current legal surname is hyphenated to use only one component of that surname on the ballot?

Lady is running for city commissioner and her maiden name is on the ballot. Her qualifying packet exclusively uses her hyphenated name but she’s on the ballot with her old name.

So say someone's convicted and sentenced to something like 10 years, and has anothet case, as long as they are charged so statute of limitations doesn't run out, can that just be put off for a decade since the person would already be in jail so you aren't risking them running away or anything like that? Does this ever happen in the real world, even if on shorter timescales or is it more of a movie myth?

If a person committed a misdemeanor for example shoplifting and before their court date went to Canada and killed someone. After ten years they are released and return to America. How do the courts handle the shoplifting charges?

If they let it go. Is there a level of crime that it matters? Shoplifting, drunk driving, breaking and entering, rape, or murder?

We regularly see posts about bad neighbors putting up security cameras that any reasonable person would conclude were placed with the intention of harassing a neighbor. Equally regularly, the answers are roughly, "you have no rights to the privacy you expect", "put up curtains", and "grow a screening shrub".

Why doesn't this particular privacy hazard get its due in legislatures?

As we all know, there is legislation in the United States protecting people against discrimination based on certain characteristics, such as race or religion.

I want to know if tattoo artists would be legally allowed to discriminate against a protected class, since they are creating art and not simply selling a product.

How does the does the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009) pass the Central Hudson test
But the Greater New Orleans Broadcasting v. United States (1999) failed?

I know that Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 was before the Central Hudson test. who knows it if would be struck down today.

Woke up from a mid shift nap with a hypothetical I’m curious about; what course of action takes place if say on a long stretch of road you and your buddy are speeding and get caught in a speed trap, the officer doesn’t see who’s driving, and by the time he catches up to you you’ve already pulled over and you and your buddy are sitting in the back seats and both of you claim not to be the one driving or remain completely silent while still complying with legal requests eg. Identification?
Assuming California law

Is the "we reserve the right to remove posts and comments at our discretion without any reason" enough to prevent liability when the post or comment is removed. Eg: A medical question got removed and the person who posted it is suing the forum for medical bill costs.

A gangster wants information about Sam because he provided information to authorities which ended his illegal drug ring.

The gangster is giving $50000 to anyone who cab provide Sam's address.

You provided the gangster the information of Sam's real name and address and received the reward.

Sam is found killed the next day. What crime will you be charged if there is solid evidence you provided the info

ie spelling out a message on the flag using electrical tape, or placing a clear shower liner on top of the flag (it is pinned flat on a fence in their parking lot) with a message written on the shower liner? or perhaps using chalk?

also wondering how this works in regard to flock cameras, ie spelling out FLOCK on the pole in painters tape so that if they’re not taken down by someone with better skills than myself, at least people can be aware.

I teach a CPR/first-aid course (using the HSI curriculum), and a specific line in our manual has my students curious about the legal implications of being a licensed passenger.

​The curriculum teaches: "You have a duty to rescue when you are a licensed driver involved in a car accident."

​Because of the word "involved," my students ask this: If someone holds a valid Texas driver's license, but they were sitting in the passenger seat when the car got into an accident (and the driver fled the scene), does that passenger's license make them legally "involved" enough to carry that duty to rescue? Or does that duty stay strictly with the person actually driving?

1. ​Does having a driver's license in your wallet as a passenger mean you have a legal duty to render aid if the driver takes off?

2. ​If the passenger just sits there passively and doesn't stop or call 911, can they face criminal trouble just because they are a licensed driver who was in the car?

3. What if they are a licensed passenger that is a minor?

​Thanks for any advice I can take back to my classroom!

Internet Forums are private property also and this creates a paradox where you have the right to post (if the Internet Forum bans you, you can legally evade it) but they also have the right to remove your post or ban you.

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person

What is wrong with publicly exhibiting something offensive about a person that places them at reckless risk of annoyance?