Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Question for PAC, et al.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Not to diss PAC, but I would have specifically addressed this question to SU. He knows crap like this.

    All American is a good second, but he's still a novice.

    Definitely SU.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
      DDD's example is actually an interesting question to me, despite its lack of practical use or even possibility of happening. If someone killed the Loch Ness Monster, would it be a crime? Could a clever prosecutor find some statute by which to charge him/her? This stuff interests me, and I'm not even incarcerated. Of course, if he says it's stupid, then it's stupid, because it doesn't interest the pissy little doggie.
      States have varying animal cruelty laws, some of which are fairly broad and could theoretically be used to prosecute the killing of a dinosaur or lake monster. Furthermore, the owner (if any) of such a creature may have a civil cause of action for trespass to chattels.
      "What are you prepared to do?" - Jimmy Malone

      "What choice?" - Abe Petrovsky

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
        This is a stupid thread. You cannot contract or consent to a tort or crime and it is irrelevant whether dueling has been outlawed because there are some pretty recent laws on the books that prohibit assault, battery, murder, use of deadly weapons, etc. Also, in the event of death, the State would likely be a party to the case, regardless of whether the deceased wanted to "sue" anyway.

        Hope this helps.

        Now onto another brain teaser....if I saw a dinosaur and killed it, would I get into trouble because there are no laws that specifically mention dinosaurs.
        This is, of course, correct. And to add to the point, murder and manslaughter are well-defined statutory crimes in all states for which dueling is not an exception and consent is not a defense. No need to rely upon common law.

        As for the Loch Ness Monster, well, I guess we'd have to become familiar with the laws of Scotland. But most states in the US define which animalws can be killed without a license and the LNM doesn't happen to fit the definition of a varmint.

        Then again, if the Monster is killed in Lake Widemere, in England, after traveling there form Loch Ness via an underground water passage, we'd have to consult the laws of England.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...indermere.html

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
          Not to diss PAC, but I would have specifically addressed this question to SU. He knows crap like this.

          All American is a good second, but he's still a novice.

          Definitely SU.
          Crap being the operative word. I don't think this is a legal question at all. I think wuap's just using a weak hypothetical in hopes of inspiring a philosophical wankery sort of discussion of the nature and history of the common law.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jacob View Post
            This is, of course, correct. And to add to the point, murder and manslaughter are well-defined statutory crimes in all states for which dueling is not an exception and consent is not a defense. No need to rely upon common law.
            Bingo (not withstanding the common law jibba jabba that 3L was quoting....probably from James Lemon or Gordon Wood).

            My boy's wicked smaht!
            Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
              If someone killed the Loch Ness Monster, would it be a crime? Could a clever prosecutor find some statute by which to charge him/her? This stuff interests me, and I'm not even incarcerated.
              This is not stupid, it's just a good reminder of why we have academia. People who think this way need a place to be in our society.
              “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
              ― W.H. Auden


              "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
              -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


              "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
              --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
                Not to diss PAC, but I would have specifically addressed this question to SU. He knows crap like this.

                All American is a good second, but he's still a novice.

                Definitely SU.
                Spot on, and no offense taken. My metier lies more in the area covered by a law review article that was published during my time in law school, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                  Spot on, and no offense taken. My metier lies more in the area covered by a law review article that was published during my time in law school, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule.
                  I had a prof who writes stuff like this. Last year he wrote a piece parsing the legal foundations of the 'indisputable video evidence' standard of review in college football.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by All-American View Post
                    ... the fact that it has been so long since any cases have relied upon that precedent would weigh against abiding by it....
                    I believe it's been weighed-in on as recently as 1983:

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
                      This is not stupid, it's just a good reminder of why we have academia. People who think this way need a place to be in our society.
                      I'd think this way even if I weren't a professor.
                      "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
                      The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                        I'd think this way even if I weren't a professor.
                        You don't know that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by YOhio View Post
                          You don't know that.
                          You're right, it is unknowable. I will restate. "I thought this way even when I wasn't yet a professor."
                          "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
                          The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                            I'd think this way even if I weren't a professor.
                            That's why you need to be a professor. Otherwise you'd just be a sad misfit.
                            “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                            ― W.H. Auden


                            "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                            -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                            "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                            --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by LA Ute View Post
                              That's why you need to be a professor. Otherwise you'd just be a sad misfit.
                              I know. I almost went to law school.
                              "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
                              The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                                I know. I almost went to law school.
                                “There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
                                ― W.H. Auden


                                "God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
                                -- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons


                                "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
                                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X