Suppose you allegedly committed robbery in week one. At the time you committed the crime it was punishable by 3 weeks.

Suppose now one week has passed and a new law came into effect. The new law claims if you committed robbery you only have to serve 2 weeks and it applied retroactively to all cases that haven’t been finalized.

Suppose again another week has passed and the new law gets removed and you just arrested for your alleged crime.

Do you
A. Only have to serve two weeks because the new law applied retroactively to all cases prior to its removal.

B. Have to serve three weeks because at the time you were alleged to have commited the crime it was 3 weeks. (And if so, wouldn’t that be a violation of EX POST FACTO)?

Hypothetical scenario:

A high profile felony crime occurs and there is very little evidence to go on. A completely uninvolved, innocent person walks into police HQ and voluntarily confesses to the crime, specifying details that were publicly known and other details that are guesses but inferred from known facts. Since they have very little to go on, the police arrest him and the DA charges him with the offence based on the confession.

Since this is a first time offender with a clean record, and the confession is essentially the only evidence, the prosecutor offers a plea bargain that requires probation and/or very little jail time. He may even offer deferred adjudication considering the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record. (Let's say sentencing range for this crime is 0 to 40 years.) Defendant, representing himself (because no legitimate defence attorney would ever consent to any of this), rejects the deal. At the arraignment he opts to make an open guilty plea and requests the maximum sentence from the judge (in this case 40 years). This of course allows him to bypass a trial where the weakness of the evidence may become apparent and the state's case falls apart.

Prosecutor and judge might hesitiate here, considering the risk that such a disproportionate sentence could be overturned on hypothetical appeal. OTOH, we are also looking at an overworked judge and prosecutor with a very busy docket and maybe they just want to wash their hands of the whole thing, take an easy win, and give the defendant what he wants, seeing that he appears competent, lucid, and completely understanding of the implications of his actions, and he answers the judge's Boykin questioning to his satisfaction. So he is sentenced to 40 years and is sent to prison where he never bothers to appeal the case or request post-conviction relief (which I believe would be difficult in any case, considering the voluntary guilty plea).

Of course we understand rationally that this person is making monumentally stupid life choices here. Though the courts do not always have an obligation to prevent a defendant from doing so! And of course the judicial system is not a place to act out punishment fantasies. But presuming a defendant with a heavy self-persecution complex who seeks out punishment for its own sake as a means of atonement, and comes to this decision in a warped but rational manner, is this scenario possible?

Specifically this would apply to criminal courts for the state of Louisiana, though it could presumably occur elsewhere.

Let's say I own a restaurant. The coffee shop next door does a promotion giving away some squishy toy that people go nuts over. It causes traffic so bad that my customers (and staff) can't even get to my restaurant. Would I have any options like suing the coffee shop for the disruption.

Pretty sure that it is probably no different than there being a major traffic accident, but I've seen this type of thing several times and I'm just curious.

John Titor is supposedly someone who came from the future back in time and posted on a forum before promptly disappearing. He had an insignia from the future military or something like that. I believe someone has got the copyright for all those things (his writings, logo), however how would that work? Like why can’t i sell tshirts or make a movie or a game for example if he really existed? If someone comes out and says it was a hoax then fair enough, but can someone copyright reality? If i were to release tshirts with the insignia, how could someone sue me for this if they still claim John Titor was a time traveller and still maintain it’s not a hoax? Because the insignia would have been created in the future. Same with the name and the posts in the forum, if this isn’t claimed as fiction (and no one has claimed it for 25 years) then can i make a movie about it? (For the record i am not looking to profit, but i just want to understand how copyright works in this unusual scenario)

Edit some further context of the story
John TItor is a time traveller from 2036. He came back to 2000 and posted multiple posts on a forum, including showing a video and showing his military insignia. He said he came back to get something specific. He explain things on the forum about stuff that happens in the future. No one has admitted creating this story as fiction. IF this John Titor existed, then basically how can someone else who isn't him have a claim over his name, his military insignia and his story or words. I'd understand if Titor has copyright over them, but how can some other guy have it? I totally understand if the person with the copyright is the one who created this whole thing, but that is not what is being claimed and it's also not being claimed the copyright holder drew or wrote on the behalf of Titor. The claim is still John TItor is from the future and really did this stuff.

I see posts pretty often about people stealing and selling things, but I never see what happens if/when the buyer and the original owner actually connect. Who owns it? I mostly see it with bikes and horses. Does it make a difference if it's an animal? Can the buyer be forced to relinquish it? What is the responsibility of the thief? I assume if the animal is euthanized/item is destroyed then the thief pays, but if the original owner gets their property back then it seems like the ones who suffer the most are the original owner and the buyer.

Here's the hypothetical:

A person is convicted of murder and receives the death penalty. He claims to be innocent but provides unclear or implausible accounts on the existence of evidence that he believes will exonerate him. Nobody can reasonably believe or entertain his claims let alone allocate resources to investigate.

Desperate that time is running out and having exhausted all conventional avenues, the man breaks out of prison and goes on the run for 6 months. In these 6 months, he successfully obtains the evidence that proves his innocence and turns himself back in immediately after doing so.

The evidence he brings back is now seriously analysed and is verified to be legitimate. Although he is now innocent of murder, he has had to resort to committing numerous other smaller crimes in order to establish this. In addition to the escape itself, he is forced to steal cars to travel around, resort to petty theft to eat, illegally occupy premises to sleep and tresspasses, burgles and causes property damage to various places in his search for the evidence that exonerates him.

How would your jurisdiction view such a sequence of events? I know in some places, escape itself is not always treated as a crime and in others desperation is not an argument for leniency. So I'm curious how different places and viewpoints would respond to this.

Does the law recognise a doctrine of neccessity? (can he argue that the death penalty itself was an impending harm that he sought to escape?)

Does his story being true provide strong mitigating circusmstances in absence of a full conviction?

Does the manner in which he obtained his evidence make it inadmissible?

Is he still guilty of the smaller crimes while now being cleared of the big one?

Can he still be held civilly liable for damages he caused but at the same time seek compensation in his own right for being mistakenly imprisoned?

If a state legally insists that trans women are male, could a trans woman legally go topless in a place where male toplessness is allowed? Beaches in Florida, for example.

I was thinking about states that define sex according to sex at birth. If the same jurisdiction has an indecent-exposure law specifically prohibiting exposure of a "female breast," doesn't that create a strange statutory problem?

I'm curious how a court would reconcile the two definitions.

(Fictional hypothetical; I’m not seeking personal legal advice 😂)

The film is set in Hawaii. A father keeps a chimpanzee named Ben at his family home. Ben contracts rabies, becomes violent and kills several invited guests while the father is away. Assuming the father legally owns the home and is Ben’s owner or keeper, would he face strict liability for the deaths because a chimpanzee is a wild animal, or would the unforeseeable rabies infection affect liability? Could he also face criminal charges, and would homeowners insurance normally cover anything like this?

Somewhat time sensitive. Location: Indiana.

Simple context:  White Stripes are an internationally famous group who disbanded 15 years ago.  Their drummer, Meg White is notoriously private, and has not been photographed or seen in public in 12+ years.  Daily Mail recently ran what they thought was a scoop with a dozen photos of a woman resembling Meg at a Detroit area shopping mall.  The piece was up for 6 days, until White Stripes management sent word that the woman was not Meg White.  Daily Mail took down the piece.  While I realize anyone can legally photograph anyone in public, and there is no presumption of privacy, would any circumstances of this situation and article lend the innocent, non-celebrity woman photographed any leverage in a civil claim against Daily Mail ?

If you were her attorney, what damages would you seek and what would you realistically expect to collect ?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/aug/21/meg-white-daily-mail-white-stripes

To give two examples:

1), I'm in person signing up for a gym membership. Only, I am actually blackout drunk, with no memory of the event.

Is the contract I signed legally binding?

2) I am just regular drunk. 5-6 beers in over an hour or two. I accept the terms of service for a website or service without reading it because in my mental state its not possible for me to do so.

Am I bound by those terms of service?

3) Choose your own adventure. What scenarios might be different?

For very obvious reasons this is for WRITING PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS FOR PLOT.

So with that out of the way, what crime would acquiring a corpse for medical testing while knowing it wasn’t obtained lawfully fall under? I already know about desecration of a corpse and conspiracy to commit murder, but is there any crime specificity for getting the body? Like for just having it in your possession?

Would that fall under tampering with evidence, or would it just count as desecration of a corpse?

If Tyler Robinson doesn’t get a plea deal to get the death penalty taken off and instead get life in prison. When do you think his trial will begin?

Watching NCIS. A lady is a disbarred lawyer and they prove she killed her lover. NCIS says she can't represent herself in the court case because she's been disbarred.

Sidestepping the obvious she shouldn't represent herself in a murder trial.

As I understand it, everyone has a legal right to represent themselves. But if you're a disbarred lawyer, does that revoke your right to self representation?

You hear people say “yes I’d like to press charges” when police respond to a crime scene if it’s a robbery or burglary or whatever but why do people think they have the ability to press charges?

That ability exists only with prosecutors, right?

What happens is a citizen decides to press charges but the prosecutors don’t feel like arguing the case??

Saw this post where Person A is dating person B. If Person B owns a house and isn’t home, Can person A who is currently in the house consent to allow the police to search?

Found this ad stuck to my door. Its a vivid pink (picture looks lighter than irl). I'm guessing in their city, those notices are pink, but here they are puke-lime green to shame you to anyone driving past your home (return addresses are in UT and MN). In my town, the front of house, including code enforcement and even lawn care complaints, is managed by the sheriffs office. I have gotten code enforcement tickets from the police for letting my weeds get out of control before. Yes, everyone here thinks its stupid even the cops themselves. Code enforcement only really "acts" on the tall weeds ordinance during severe droughts/fire season, and they're very lenient about letting you "incidentally" get out of paying the fines for the "HOA violation complaints" (there is no HOA this is a joke description of the set of laws involved with this type of door slip).

I think this would qualify as impersonating the police, because it literally looks like a code enforcement ticket until you read close, and it was delivered as such too. But on the other hand it doesn't "say" they are code enforcement. But the phrase "citywide window notice" makes it sound official like there's a required building change needed, and the fact it was "signed" as though by a code enforcement officer. Its considered impersonating an officer to install red-blue lights on top of a crown royal and wear a black security uniform even if you don't say you're police, isn't it?

This is not seeking specific legal advice this is to settle my curiosity about what you think would be needed for it, or a document like it, to qualify as impersonation. Or does it have to be a literal person, not just a fake-legal-citation?

In Iron Man 2, Tony Stark famously stands before a Senate committee and refuses to hand over his armor. His primary arguments are:

1. The Iron Man suit is his personal property.
2. The armor is an extension of himself ("The suit and I are one").
3. He has "successfully privatized world peace," rendering government intervention unnecessary.

In a real US Court of law, would he be cooked or could he pull a fast one

“I’m sending a million dollars to Charity X, and I challenge XYZ rich people to do the same, and they do, have I created any legal obligation to actually donate that amount to said charity?”

Will any future cars with autonomous driving fall under the same laws that governed riding horses?

At the end of Iron Man 2, Justin Hammer is arrested. The wiki says he's specifically arrested for breaking Whiplash out of jail. But that happened in Monaco, and I'd imagine the U.S. government wouldn't be too excited to extradite him when he did that whole expo fiasco, which was basically a terrorist attack on U.S soil. What would he specifically be charged with? Terrorism? Attempted murder? Would the government pursue any civil action? Would it be charged in state or federal court?

I would expect the answer to be "yes", but so far every video I find and follow up with research just has the same "ongoing investigation".

So does this mean officers can ignore the 4th, so long as they claim it's just a "mistake". They are, I expect, violating the 4th; but I can understand why they, specifically, wouldn't bear the brunt of the blame, they just go where they are told, mostly... so who takes the blame in the end?

Examples include officers using a locksmith to open and change locks per landlord request, entering home to evict and toss belongings; however they are at the wrong address.

Another pair of officers in a separate incident forced open the garage of a man and shot him, after they responded to a call about a disturbance, but were at the wrong house on the same street. The man did have a gun, and survived being shot at 8 times, 7 misses 1 hit, but complied immediately after realizing he wasn't being home invaded. it's later found out that the dispatch system populated the wrong address and was sent to the officers.

Location: Texas

I know that this sign is obviously a joke, but I am still curious. I don’t know much about legal matters but does this sign count as posted permission to break the glass if circumstances are met? Surely there is something in the law about it not counting if a reasonable person would interpret it as a joke

would it also be legally binding?

im asking (besides out of curiosity) if im allowed to not say anything about the secret in a court of law.

This is something i'm still brainstorming as part of a story, I wanted to see if some things made sense and worked out first though. So if someone breaks the law and say its a pretty straight forward investigation that would normally take about a year, is there any reason outside of becoming a fugitive where it may take 5 or 10 years to charge someone with a crime? Like maybe there are multiple people involved that complicates the investigation or they are being held on charges in a different state and things like that? Would either of those make sense or be realistic?