Also: "The customer is always right" Is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, a law. It was a phrase coined by Harry Selfridge, applied ONLY in his stores, and referred to "matters of taste," NOT to anything else.
And it is due, in part, to misinterpreting this saying that businesses are bending over backwards to please everyone, thus contributing to the Karen plague.
The thing about HIPAA is that it applies ONLY to people in the health care fields. It does not apply to your boss asking you why you're sick, for example. It also does not apply to a reporter asking a politician if they've been vaccinated.
In addition, if there is a HIPAA violation - the doctor's office leaks your information, for example - the doctor's office gets in serious trouble with the government. You get NOTHING for compensation.
When I worked at my local Joann I was told that I was violating HIPPA because I asked a coworker why she didn't wear a mask (it was a store mandate, and when I was hired I was told I'd get in trouble for not wearing one). Her answer was just that she didn't want to. Then she told the manager and I was told off for violating HIPPA. I'm not a medical professional in any way. This manager was shit and often took anything I did that could be considered an insult in any stretch of the word (one girl said she lived in an apartment I'd always been told was bad and I asked if the rumors were true, or asking people who went to the rival high school about it and saying how it differed from my high school). I was almost tempted to accuse that manager of a HIPPA violation when she asked why I had a doctor's note and why I was walking funny (I'd had my toenail removed and wearing closed toed shoes didn't allow me to walk in a way that reduced the pain, so I had to get creative in how I was walking to avoid being in pain).
Yeah, and it's super frustrating bc people claim that all the time so when a HIPAA violation DOES happen no one takes it seriously. I've been the victim of it. Multiple times. The healthcare in this area is truly awful. And absolutely no one believes me. One time I technically had signed off on something, but all I saw was the electronic pad and I was told that I was signing off on one conversation about one topic only. I later found out that 5 conversations had happened, 3 of which covered topics that put me in danger.
HIPPA violation is me going to your doctor to find out why you’re admitted. It’s not a violation if I ask YOU directly. The violation comes from them telling me, not you. A violation is your friend or family member (who is a doctor) telling you the name of a patient who is not family.
Regarding carrying/transporting things like swords or other weapons for medieval re-enactments: When declaring the contents of your luggage refer to them as "theatrical props" rather than "weapons." It will cause many fewer suspicions and alarms to go off.
The rear ending stories reminded me of a story. In middle school my dad picked me up at school. He got the stop light. As he started to slow down luckily he kept the legal safe distance. A woman in front of us hit reverse and hit the gas fast. My dad quickly realized it and he hit reverse hitting the gas as well. It was crazy as I watched my dad reverse down the road as this woman was also going reverse as fast as she could trying her best to line the back of her car with our front. After some time (I want to say about 500 feet, but I was young and freaking out) she stopped dead. My dad stopped, watching her, and waiting to see if he needed to hit the gas again. She just slowly started driving forward again as if her trying to cause an accident did not happen. My dad kept our car in the same place for a while (I think it was to wait until she left). We found out later this woman was trying to cause accidents. She did it every few years to get a new car. She also caused an accident with a kid in the other car so she could get a new car. She knew if she made us rear-end her she would claim she was in the right. I was told she did get a new car. Fishtailed on front of a man causing him to crash into the back of her car. A different woman got my brother. He was pulling out of the driveway at the age of seventeen. A woman saw and hit her gas. She t-boned him and I saw on our porch. The woman called the cops. It was an old cop and said "Nothing I can do about it. Legally no matter what you are at fault because you were pulling out of a driveway". I came out telling him what I saw and seeing that she even stopped at the end of our street before hitting the gas to cause the 'accident' on purpose. The old cop again said "Because he pulled out it is all his fault". That woman got a new car out of it. The smile on her face. I still heavily dislike that woman. She could have killed someone, but she only cared about getting a new car. The passenger side of my brother's car was crushed so thank goodness I didn't take his offer to go with him.
RE the unionizing one: you can be fired for a wildcat strike or a pre-unionized walkout. However, after your union is certified and before you have a contract (or during renegotiations of a contract) you very much have the right not to be fired for striking or picketing; those are the major ways workers fight for better wages and conditions from their employers. Don’t be scared away from doing the right thing!
the frustrating part about trying to maintain a safe distance is that other drivers will insert theirself into the space, causing your attempt to make the distance safer to result in a less safe distance.
I hate when people do that. I've put off getting my license for years because first my parents wouldn't let me, then my step mom worked to terrify me away from driving, and then just seeing how other drive gives me so much anxiety. Sure there are people who don't want to get into accidents, but plenty of people will cut into the safe following distance for what I see as no reason. My ex was teaching me to drive and would often tell me that I could get pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic and get pissed of when I point out that the speed limit is 55 because we're in a construction zone. And God forbid I got 25 or slower in our residential area with a narrow road, tons of blind spots, and many curves and hills. Going 25 in the down town area and being prepared to break at any second or stopping at a stop sign for the proper amount of time? I'm an incompetent driver and don't deserve my license. That being said. I'm taking my driver's test this Wednesday and I'm a bit nervous, but it's the biggest step in me moving out of my ex's house.
The entrapping child predators one reminded me of a situation a while back. One of those TH-cam vigilante group types set up 'a sting' using a girl who was over 18, but looked maybe younger. They would tell guys on dating sites she was 15 (even though they had to state she was 18 to publish the profile) and see if they came to meet, record them and out the video online. Doesn't always help, often hinders, police investigations... but sure. This one time they forgot to say that she was underage. So they were blasting the guy in public but he had done nothing wrong. Her profile said she was 18, he was 18, the bait girl was actually 18, and he had no reason to believe otherwise. 🤦♂️
So that was a stupid and potentially harmful mistake but what I'm really concerned about is the fact that this somehow hinders police investigations. These people are doing exactly what the police would do, so if that's somehow harmful, then maybe that's the police's fault.
Many times people do it wrong, or tip off the person, or don’t get police involved and let the person get away Scot free. I read something in a book a while back about it and it made total sense. A good way to think about it is if you are a cattle rancher and your trying to round up your cattle and another, less experienced cattle rancher comes into your field and brings your cows across to his field, and then is like “I wrangled them for you” it just makes your job harder
Not a lawyer but I know that it isn’t illegal to just be a bystander. Don’t know why so many people think it is illegal to just not interfere. Edit: above isn’t a true everywhere, also as a chef myself I can confirm that I have a cooking pistol.
I think the bystander laws have also been under review in several areas because of criminally negligent bystanding, so it’s doubly unclear where what rules apply. As just a recreational cook, I do have a chefs pistol however much like most specialty equipment, I don’t know how to use it and hurt myself when I do.
Yup, "duty to act" laws are almost nonexistent except I think for some very very rare instances pertaining to first responders. Unfortunately it needs to stay that way though. If you require people to act, suddenly you put victims at risk of negligent bystanders and bystanders at risk of being sued even when they would be covered by good Samaritan laws.
@@psychickumquat I think most of the failure to act laws coming into place are based on reasonable response (ie filming someone drowning instead of calling for help, or otherwise generally ignoring an event when you’re capable of contacting those able to assist), not so much hopping in the water yourself as that just means another untrained random is in the water, the lawsuit bit is definitely more of a thing in the states
Ctrl-c Ctrl-c from some law site in Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island, Good Samaritan statutes require people at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance, such as calling 9-1-1.
Story 8: About nine out of every ten non-frivolous laws (at least here in the US) have to do with whether a person possesses a thing, i.e. owns it or has it with them.
You laugh at the thought of a cooking pistol, but there IS a cooking canon! It's a traditional Chinese device used to puff rice. You put a little pressure chamber over the fire, then when it's hot you open the chamber and ALL of the rice pops at once, causing it to explode out with a huge bang and smoke. A sack is attached for the rice to shoot into. There are videos of it, it's awesome. If anyone knows the name of the device please tell me, I couldn't find it anywhere!
Story 38 - I call BS! If there is such a law, it should be challenged in court as causing avoidable deaths, and whoever passed it thrown in jail. Such laws should NEVER exist as it just makes people unwilling to help out of concern for being sued
It's not true, the main case this refers to is a case where someone kept doing chest compressions after the paramedics told them to stop and they'd take over. The patient got a broken rib and sued the chest compressor who didn't follow a paramedics instructions.
about driving at a safe distance, you are absolutely correct, very rarely does it happen, and sadly enough, one of the reasons i don't currently have a license, i am honestly very afraid of being in any accident when i was driving, so i always gave people 1 second per 10 miles (was taught the same rule it seems) but added an extra second, I was pulled over by a cop for driving too slow because i was getting some space between me and the vehicle in front of me, after telling that to the cop, he apparently took it personally, because i ended up getting a ticket for driving too slow every work day from the exact same cop for the next 2 weeks, very quickly got enough points that my license was suspended, all because I actually tried to be safe, i have only ever been in one accident, it was minor, but being in an actually dangerous one has been a worry ever since, sorry for long rant, just now realizing how long I actually typed for, enjoy the video keep it up
@@VantaDraws it can be, but most people speed, you're supposed to go a little under the speed limit, not over, but everyone assumes the speed limit is the minimum, which is the exact opposite of what limit means
@@VantaDraws yea, but the person actually following the law shouldn't be the one punished, the people actually driving dangerously and speeding should be
Setup a nanny cam after the babysitter asked if her boy friend could come over and help her with her homework. We went out for 5 hours I did a review of the nanny cam when I got home. I was not happy with I saw. She spent all of the 5 hours doing her home work.
Here's one: In the UK, there is no law explicitly forbidding public nudity. There are public order offences, but that only encapsulates nudity if you go out of your way to shove it in peoples faces e.g. streaking at a football match, whipping your bits out in front of school children. But there is nothing that says you can't be nude and just minding your own business. Theoretically, you could go for a walk around town wearing nothing but your birthday suit and you wouldn't get in trouble. That doesn't always happen though, people will still get arrested for it and have it classed as a public order offence, and therefore the general public thinks public nudity is illegal as a result. It's a real shame that society has made a taboo out of something so natural as your own body, to the point that everyone thinks it's illegal to be naked except for designated nudist areas.
In regards to a lot of the advice in this video it's important to look up local laws because what might be legal in one state can be a felony and another. 1. Like stated above in regards to filming look up your local laws for example where I live it is legal to film people in public but not private businesses or property. For example if you're filming somebody in say a Walmart in one of the employees tells you to stop recording you have to stop recording. 2. In regards to maintaining a safe distance between vehicles I was taught that it was a car and a half length away at minimum. 3. In regards to that confusing CPR question from what I was taught when I took first aid it was about consent. For example if the person is rented unconscious or unable to give consent then consent is implied. If someone is awake and capable of giving consent and they tell you not to help them then that's when you can face legal action. 4.Entrapment is defined as a situation in which a normally law-abiding individual is induced into committing a criminal act they otherwise would not have committed because of overbearing harassment, fraud, flattery or threats made by an official police source.
Story 38. To answer your question, the Good samaritan law covers you when consent is given. Or when there implied consent. So like if someone is choking and you offer to help and the shew you away, you can't do anything. But once they pass out, you can because then concent is implied eventhough they refused while conscious.
Some german laws: While you may not run around naked in public areas, the inside of a car is essentially treated the same as your home, so you are allowed to drive around in public completely naked. Another thing, you can drive a car as long as you below the maximum allowed amount of alcohol in your blood and as long as you stay below that amount you are legaly allowed to drink alcohol while driving. Also you can loose your drivers licence if you are riding a bicycle while drunk. There is a law that explicitly allows everyone to arrest someone if they witness them commiting a crime (it's refered as Jedermans Paragraph), though if I'm not mistaken you are not allowed to use restraints on them.
4:46 as a spaniard, whose mother has studied law as a career, that is absolutely true. And we see the book thing as a América only thing, like thanksgiving or pbj sándwiches.
@@Jedidiah_Martin_2 sorry, this was posted at 3:00 am in my country and I couldnt answer. About the feast day, Im not sure. There are days where we eat like pigs, and days celebrating a specific dish (thought this depends on the autonomic comunity, which is like a state). But I haven't heard nor celebrated any "día del festín" Or anything similar. Where have you taken this info from?
@@pabloherranz1795 No info taken from anywhere, it was just honest curiosity; basically I had no idea, so I took the opportunity to ask a person who lives there 🙂 Small aside, my Mom's hometown, the small farming community of Manhattan, Montana, has a potato festival every year in mid-July 😆
In my country in the Philippines where you can sue someone for hexing, not that I am a non-believer of magic and supernatural I just find it comical to accuse someone of witchcrafts because of your misfortunes. One example is you can sue someone for giving you "gayuma" (Filipino version of love spell) cause you are madly in love with the person lmao.
The Good Samaritan Laws (in the U.S., at least) is more about protecting you if you cause further injury to someone while trying to save their life, e.g.: break a rib during CPR, twist their fractured spine so they are now paralyzed while dragging them out of a burning car, etc., and not about requiring your help.
20:43 A person seeking insurance fraud. Could and have in some cases. Choose to stop than back reverse into any said car behind them. This is why driver cams are a game changer and life saver.
yup ive seen videos where they even have a witness just standing at the corner say the guy rear ended them but end up running away when they find out that they have a camera. along with people cutting someone off. they were only able to prove they didn't cause the accident becuase they has a dash cam.
I drive bare feet all the time, I just think it’s way more comfortable (they are moved out of the way as to not get stuck under the peddles) it’s made a lot easier because I ware flip-flops when ever possible. And it’s really difficult and risky to drive with flip-flops then bare feet
I've done this too, for the same reason. I don't regularly wear flip-flops, but the first time I tried to drive in them I was like, "I am totally going to get the pedal stuck between my toes and the sole, or something equally dumb, I need to take these off."
story 2. a good lawyer could argue that the "arrest" was unconstitutional and violated his rights as the law of the land states that you have the right to know at the minimum what you are being charged with and often with maybe a few exceptions who brought the charges on you.
The thing about consent to help people if your CPR certified is that consent to provide life-saving care is implied if the person is unconscious and unable to verbally consent. I was very recently CPR certified lol
About the law on switchblades in my state they actually are illegal as are stilettos, leverlettos, automatic knives, gravity knives, and butterfly knives. Any other type of knife is perfectly legal so long as you don't have the intent to cause harm.
In my country (Germany), it is not forbidden to drive a car without shoes on - but if you cause an accident, law enforcement is going to take a very close look at whether or not the accident was caused by you not wearing shoes.
I drive barefoot all the time. It's safer than driving with flip flops on. I tuck them under my seat or next to the door. My left foot keeps them from moving around.
1second per 10miles is a lot and impractical. Here in the Netherlands we have a two second rule no matter what the speed you are driving at as the distance automatically increases as you speed up. Also reaction time does not de or increase depending on speed. You will need one second to respond
DUI, There is no technical legal limit before it become illegal to drive. If the officer says you where intoxicated to the slightest degree even if it is .001% you can still be charged with a DUI. I knew someone that this happened too in Arizona. He only had one beer and tried driving home. He was stopped sobriety tested, even given a breathalyzer test. He was told you are intoxicated to the nth degree and spent the next 30 days in a country prison for a DUI charge.
As a truck driver, the amount of idiots that change lanes in front of you and then stop suddenly boggles the mind. Trucks leave big gaps for a reason and merging into that gap can ruin everybodys day
No. It is your right to be told your charges eventually, but not at the time of that arrest. The cops don't determine the charges, so they can't even really tell you. The DA's office, the prosecutor, they determine the charges after you're booked. The cops only have to justify why the arrested the person to the state, not to the suspect. Charges have to be laid in a reasonable amount of time, but not immediately upon arrest. Miranda rights don't even have to be read at the time if arrest. They never have to be read unless the police intend to interrogate. The rule is that Miranda rights must be read before interrogation of any suspect in police custody. And that technically means if you aren't free to leave and you're being questioned, the cops have to tell you a few specific rights if they want the questioning to be admissable in court, or if they want any of the investigation that was brought about because of the questioning to be admissable in court. You should never talk to a cop, but if you do talk to a cop after they've established that you are not free to leave, either by actually telling you that you aren't, or by physically restraining you, and they haven't read you your rights, then they fucked up, but that doesn't mean you're automatically off the hook. And the rights that have to be read are; the right to remain silent, that your words can be used against you in court, that you have the right to an attorney, and that you will be given an attorney if you can't afford one. That's it. Once arrested or detained, there's usually a timeframe when they have to tell you your charges. They can question you without ever laying charges as long as they have probable cause, and they don't have to provide their probable cause to anyone but the state, and then the state through the courts will tell you the provided reasoning if you fill out the proper paperwork and pay a fee.
@@ShapesWithoutColors that doesn't entirely make sense considering I don't even have to identify myself unless they can articulate a crime I'm being accused of. Also, I don't have to obey an unlawful order.
@@ShapesWithoutColors Seems to me like this'd work against them; I'd probably invoke right to remain silent anyway, but I'd _definitely_ do so if they wouldn't even say what I'd been arrested for.
Regarding story 34, here in New Zealand I believe during public holidays, especially Christmas - New Years time of year; police will pull you over for going 1 kph over the speed limit, which is about 0.62mph. I only say I believe because I'm pretty sure it's meant to be enforced year round now. There is a bit of controversy around it because having such a tight leeway means plenty of drivers feel like they need to watch their speedometer so closely as we don't all have the privilege of cruise control, even in my 2016 car I don't have it lol.
I LUV this law 🤣 In Montana, we still have three old laws from the 1800's that are active: 1) A man convicted of looking at a woman "suggestively" may be sentenced to wear a set of horse blinders when out in public for up to a month. 2) Any person convicted of stealing horses or cattle may be sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead, especially if that theft caused one or more deaths. 3) A person released from prison may choose to be given twenty dollars in gold and a saddle upon release. (I understand this option was popular amongst horse thieves)
Video recording may be questionable in most sensitive private environments. But audio is more or likely acceptable. If looking to have a safety net against unjust prosecution in private business or home. Just may not be acceptable in government sector areas. Even though the government operated areas themselves would likely have hidden audio recordings. So even then it's acceptable.
in some US states, recording Phone Calls requires consent... which reminds me of a story where someone from a telemarketer company complained about being recorded without his knowledge, and the other guy's lawyer responded with a recording of a telemarketer SAYING that HE was recording the call...yeah. that was in one of those "Lawyers, when did the other side prove your case for you?" videos.
21:31 - I find it really strange that no one in this video (to be fair I did pause at the time stamp) are aware of the “swoop and squat”. I remember there were many traffic collisions caused by this method. If memory serves there were a group of them that occurred in the late 90s/early 2000s. The method is this: there is usually one driver (though as many as three have been recorded) who follows a target for some distance. They will suddenly swerve their car in front of their victim OR already be in the same lane, they will then suddenly slam on the breaks causing the other driver to hit them. Yes, there should be some distance between vehicles (as much as a car’s length if memory serves me right) but it wasn’t always that simple. Back then many cars could NOT stop at the drop of a dime (many drivers still had older model cars) which these criminals were banking on. After causing the accident, they have and will contact the police and have a story ready about how they had to avoid an object in the road e.g.: an animal, a large piece of debris, etc. and the other driver rear ended them. Since there weren’t always witnesses around, it would be a matter of one driver’s word against the other. HOWEVER, criminals usually want to keep the police out of it and coheres the victim into just writing a check to make the accident go away. Enough drivers and insurance companies fell for this scam, SO the US (I am almost certain this is the law in many states), that if there is an accident the police should be notified. This was also around the time that it became illegal for drivers to not have proof of insurance. If memory serves me correctly, that WAS the reason why. Due to the many fraud cases they decided that drivers had to have insurance. This hasn’t 100% deterred all fraud cases but it did lower them significantly. So although YES, it is usually the fault of the driver if they rear end another vehicle, if there is even a WHIFF of it being a scam, the person in the front car can and will be arrested. Note: I am speaking of cases of the accidents that take place on the highway, freeway, or on main streets. If the accident occurred at a STOP sign, red light, or yield signs, that is seen as the fault of the driver who rear ended someone.
I used to work as a family lawyer in NSW, Australia. One “that’s not a law” I kept coming across in my work is people telling me that like they had agreed or would agree to give their spouse XYZ if it meant they didn’t have to pay child support. Where I’m from, family law agreements are federal. Child support is an entirely separate right afforded by the State government. The law says that if a child is eligible for a child support assessment, the federal court is FORBIDDEN from making any child maintenance orders - in other words orders superseding or circumventing the state governments assessment of child support. This misconception meant I was often met with people who were outraged that they were getting child support assessments from the government because they believed they had already paid their spouse an amount in lieu of child support, often meaning they felt like they were paying twice. I couldn’t stop the child support assessment, best I could do was attempt to get those past payments recognised by the government as having been payments made towards child support
Many Good Samaritan laws, such as those in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware, cover anyone who attempts to help in an emergency, while others are specific to certain situations. For example, Alabama’s law only extends to trained rescuers and public education employees unless the emergency is cardiac arrest, at which point anyone can get involved. In Oklahoma, Good Samaritan protection only covers bystander emergency assistance related to CPR or controlling bleeding.
On the hearsay thing, I suspect that the “it must be on video” only applied to the company’s internal firing and disciplinary policies. They’re probably trying to stop employees from making frivolous or petty complaints against other employees. What the company does internally is different from what applies in a Court of Law If a room full of people saw an employee murder someone, HR might not use their testimony to fire the suspect, but their testimony would be admissible at a murder trial in a Court of Law.
I once got overtaken by some lunatic who pulled in right in front of me and proceeded to slam his brakes on. HARD. I'm extremely lucky that there was no other traffic. Meant I could see said idiot idioting from some distance (he was going pretty fast, he was visible behind me for no more than a second) and I actually had somewhere to go. Probably an attempted crash for cash. It really IS possible to force someone to rear-end you, especially if they're paying the average amount of attention.
I did get baited into rear ending someone. Didnt fight it bc i was already dealing with too much and there was no cameras nearby. But the dude absolutely did bait me. Stopped at a red light, he was 2nd in line i was 3rd. Light turns green, he begins moving. Prior to either of us moving i was behind him at the distance suggested by drivers ed, even a bit more than that. So i saw him move, i start releasing the brake and ease onto the gas. As i do so, assuming he would continue moving like a normal person, i glance at my gas tank indicator so i know if i need to fill up. In the .5 second it took to do that, he had slammed on his brakes. His brake lights were "conveniently" out. Weird, since they somehow were back on afterwards. That doesnt seem legal but okay. Its fine though, i did have to pay a fine, but he got the real bad ending. All he got me was a fine, but he had to not have his car while it got fixed (i sae the damage and i know the mechanics here- no less than 3 weeks without his car lol)
Driving bare foot feels pretty good actually, I get way more feel that way. Agree with not riding a motorbike barefoot though, those controls don't really benefit from it amd the potential downside is disastrous.
I dont wear shoes while driveing because i mostly wear flip flop/ sandles which are infact illigal to wear while driving as they can slide between the peddle and your footthus trapping your foot in place
Here in the UK we have a lot of old roads that are only wide enough for one car with hair pin bends. They have a national speed limit that for minor roads is 60 mph for single carriageway. They would be dangerous to drive at these speeds but not illegal. There are at least 3 other laws that you could be charged with if you drove more than 25 mph. This is not the same as a restricted road that is for built up areas at 30 mph
IMO Driving without shoes is better and importantly, safer. The reason being is that you have a much better sense of pressure and feedback on the pedal (An unknown, finicky clutch or sticky throttle cable easily illustrates my point). The drawback, I guess, would be getting a pebble or sharp object underfoot while driving. It's an easy tradeoff decision in my book. FWIW Obviously this doesn't seem as advantageous in winter snow ;). my .02 worth
Where I live we have the 2-second rule. Basically, when you're driving at any speed, you should be 2 seconds behind someone. When the person in front of you passes a road sign or something on the side of the road, you start counting in your head "1001, 1002." If you reach that same thing on the side of the road before you get to 1002, you're too close. If you make it to 1002 right when you reach that thing, you are at a safe distance.
Where I live at, I am one of the very few that do not drive with my bumper one inch from the front driver's bumper. Why is it that I am driving the actual speed limit in the right lane and a reckless entitled driver have to drive so close to me? In the USA our lane directions maybe different than yours. Over here, the police do not pull over people for tailgating. I have seen people tailgating police cars.
I’m imagining a film where they’re in a race to the Will reading across the US due to no shows being written out and therefore the others getting more money, think Wacky Races, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, etc. At the end though they all show up and the ‘prize’ is worthless after their escapades through the film destroyed it’s value.
story 8: "possession is 9/10th of the law" refers to the practicalities of how ownership disputes play out -- it's not a legal doctrine. If the court does not have compelling evidence of which party is the rightful owner, then the party possessing it will likely be presumed to be the rightful owner. There are also various forms of adverse possession laws, where a party can lose the ownership of property if they don't use it but others do (without permission). In effect, the owner has conducted theirself in such a way that their ownership has no meaning, and there are sometimes laws which override that ownership in some such situations.
I get annoyed when people tell me possession is nine tenths of the law when it comes to a laptop or some other item. While it's true that if I'm claiming someone stole something from me I'll have to prove that item was mine. (Innocent till proven guilty) proving the item is mine may be fairly simple. Having a picture of the item in my house could very well be enough. Serial numbers and such are also good.
@@johnclaybaugh9536 For a laptop, I think knowing the password might suffice. If not, then having a bunch of pictures of yourself on there definitely will.
@@dmgroberts5471 truth. If a laptop is used mostly by one person that person would have the most knowledge of what is stored in it. Names of files, etc.
I didn’t hear it as a second for very 10 miles per hour, but a car length. So if you’re traveling at 65 miles per hour, you should be about 6.5 car lengths behind the car in front of you.
I keep getting conflicting answers as to whether or not cops have to tell you why you're being arrested. I'm going to assume it depends on the state. Also, apparently defensive weapons are illegal in France. Time for another revolution? And btw, about diatracted driving and talking to passengers, how are cops going to know you were even talking to passengers?
Not a 100% sure, but "i saw Y do Z" is a witness statement, while "X told me Y did Z" is hearsay. A witness statement pertains to what you yourself have witnessed, while hearsay is passing on rumors you've heard. If X told you Y did Z then either X or Y need to give statement to the fact, or it is practically useless. But a witness statement isn't completely useless without video evidence.
If I said, “I don’t feel good”, my dad would pinch my arm and say, “You feel fine to me”. If I said I was tired he did the Hi tired, I’m dad, glad to meet you, thing.
23:40 4th Amendment is the Freedom of your Persons, Possessions, and Documents to not be Unlawfully Charged for a Crime. Transparency is key when out in public.
I work in IT. People yelling HIPAA about any personal information is the bane of my existence and withholding simple information like your user ID for the system MEANS I CANT HELP YOU
To be fair from the other side of that the consequences for allowing someone to view HIPAA related documents are really intense so it's not like their fear is unfounded. You could probably grease the wheels by letting them know you are authorized to deal with that material. Some people are just idiots though and nothing you say will get through. Best of luck.
"Road tax" DOES NOT EXIST. Entitled pinheads in cars keep claiming it to justify violence and terrorism against pedestrians and cyclists. If there WERE (and should be) "road tax", it would ONLY apply to cars and trucks, since their weight is what destroys the roads. Pedestrians and cyclists should get a rebate since they're not causing damage. 6:10 - Someone can't grasp "possession is 9/10ths", i.e. "It's mine, not his!" and is believed after stealing? 7:35 - Nail polish. Cool.
story 38 you can not be charged with any type of murder or assault if you give someone CPR. or if someone is going to kill them self you can restrain them to prevent them from harming them self. but this OP might not live in the USA.
21:30 100 percent agree on the travwlong at a safe distance, however it is possible for someone to cut you off and slam on the brakes. Thats the only scenario i can think of where collision from behind would not be the fault of the rear driver
So, the service dog 'leash' rule is incorrect, at least in the USA. It depends on what the dog does as a task for the handler. Per the ADA website : "The service animal must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered while in public places unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the person’s disability prevents use of these devices. In that case, the person must use voice, signal, or other effective means to maintain control of the animal. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair may use a long, retractable leash to allow her service animal to pick up or retrieve items. She may not allow the dog to wander away from her and must maintain control of the dog, even if it is retrieving an item at a distance from her. Or, a returning veteran who has PTSD and has great difficulty entering unfamiliar spaces may have a dog that is trained to enter a space, check to see that no threats are there, and come back and signal that it is safe to enter. The dog must be off leash to do its job, but may be leashed at other times."
The one about the knife being considered a weapon if it's for defense thing reminds me of a (genuinely stupid) set of laws in Ohio. In Ohio, all knives were legal as of ~4 or 5 years ago except for switchblades. HOWEVER, you could not/cannot carry a knife if it's more than 3.5 inches long (understandable) or if it is being carried for the intent of harm. This includes if you're carrying a knife in case you need to defend yourself. Do I have to remind people remotely knowledgeable of the US (or memes) that Ohio is both a red state and oh yeah a part of the US? Where guns are legal, and especially legal if you carry in self-defense. AND IT'S EVEN LEGAL TO CARRY ANYTHING THAT ISN'T A HANDGUN WITHOUT A LISCENSE. "Oh, you're carrying a gun around in case someone tries to assault you? Fine, indeed, good sir. Oh, but that knife? Oh, that's *also* in self-defense? Come with me."
A great example of this is the muh property bros. The idiots that think they can shoot anyone who so much as steps across their property line or that because they own the property that they can do anything they want because it's "private property". In the US this is super common. The reality is that you still need permits and to follow local, state and federal codes. As far as shooting you can not do so even in a castle doctrine/stand your ground state unless there is a genuine danger to you. You can not for instance just shoot a hunter who trespasses unless they are actually threatening you, you can ask them to leave and call the cops if they don't though. You do hear a lot of idiots who seem to think otherwise.
7:08 anybody that knows what the proper sense is, doesn't know what HIPPA is. Those working in Healthcare have to abide by HIPAA Regulations, and not divulge Patient Information. Otherwise they can and will be subject to Scrutiny, under HIPAA Guidelines.
2:49 Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a Crime or Probable Cause for Arrest. Covered under the 1st or 4th Amendments. It is NOT Legal for cops to make false arrests. Please remember to record every and all your encounters with Law Enforcement. Otherwise you will lose your civil rights. I have autism, and have inherently known that fact since I was too young to know. I have told things before I truly knew the facts behind them, and they helped people out. I am surprised to This Day! 8:35 Same 1st and 4th Amendment Rights. They're the scope to limit the Government's Overreach to their masses.
Police: Sir is that a weapon? You: No sir, it's a tool. Police: Why is it a tool? You: I use it for cooking. Police: Sir it's a Pistol, not a knife. You: I konw, I need to shoot the pig before I toss the bodies on the fire. Police: That's not a good reason, hand it over. You: Start running, I like moving targets. LATER THAT DAY. Waiter why have my pork ribs got an odd shape and my pig trotter has a size 12 boot on it? Police: Sir is that a weapon? You: No sir, it's my tool. Police: How is that a tool? You: It's my tool sir, can you let it go. Police: Sir it's a club and not a tool. You: Thank you, now can you let go of my penis. Police: Hey what, oh shit, opps, SORRY. You: Life can be hard when you are blessed as a man.
The “weapons carry vs. weapons transport” and the thing about when a knife is a weapon, that’s similar in aber many but Germany actually has a clause about allowed blade-length, although with exceptions, such as any and all one-hand knives or automatic/ gravity knives are automatically illegal and can only be transported, never carried in public. They are free to use in your private property or a private property where you have permission to be and use them. Cool to learn France is similar there 😊 LOVE seeing so many German laws here, yay Deutschland
Two things. #1 You ARE required to have a service dog on a leash if you are PHYSICALLY able to. Service dog laws require that you have positive control over your service dog at all times. Those tiny little dogs you see that people claim are service dogs aren't in fact service dogs, most likely emotional support if anything. #2 Unionizing doesn't require any tactics. The only thing required is a vote of the workers. The hardest part about unionizing is if the vote passes and the workers decide to unionize it can take forever (I mean YEARS) to get the employer to agree to and sign the initial contract. The easiest way to unionize is to convince the company to go union, if the workers don't want to unionize then they can be replaced by the union (assuming you don't live in a right to work state which totally fucks you if you do.)
23:30: That's just wrong. Implied consent. If they're able to refuse help, then you don't have consent. But if they're unable to consent or deny, implied consent exists. Also, earlier, assuming you're anywhere in North America, statutes all over have leeway baked into speeding laws to compensate for the imperfection of speedometers. The minimum is generally 5mph
It's ok to break a rib while doing CPR. It's basically inevitable. If you're doing it right, it's going to sound awful and like you're hurting the person. Keep doing it. CPR is not performed on live victims. It's performed on dead people, to keep their brains from completely dying until they can be revived. They have stopped breathing and their heart is not beating. They'd rather have a whole set if broken ribs than be dead.
21:15 I remember this one got that didn't like that we were going the speed limit and he swooped in front of us and brake checked us not giving us a chance to "maintain a safe fallowing distance".
@@brotherhoodofsteel4751 yeah I kept telling them and this incident was one of the incident that got them to put one in. I even told them that our insurance would give us a discount.
-That pervert was taking pictures of me while I was walking on the street -Sorry but that is not illegal -But I was naked -Ok, so... let me check the book.
Also: "The customer is always right" Is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, a law. It was a phrase coined by Harry Selfridge, applied ONLY in his stores, and referred to "matters of taste," NOT to anything else.
And it is due, in part, to misinterpreting this saying that businesses are bending over backwards to please everyone, thus contributing to the Karen plague.
The thing about HIPAA is that it applies ONLY to people in the health care fields. It does not apply to your boss asking you why you're sick, for example. It also does not apply to a reporter asking a politician if they've been vaccinated.
In addition, if there is a HIPAA violation - the doctor's office leaks your information, for example - the doctor's office gets in serious trouble with the government. You get NOTHING for compensation.
Health care providers and health insurance providers. Applies to sharing of information and security of documents.
When I worked at my local Joann I was told that I was violating HIPPA because I asked a coworker why she didn't wear a mask (it was a store mandate, and when I was hired I was told I'd get in trouble for not wearing one). Her answer was just that she didn't want to. Then she told the manager and I was told off for violating HIPPA. I'm not a medical professional in any way. This manager was shit and often took anything I did that could be considered an insult in any stretch of the word (one girl said she lived in an apartment I'd always been told was bad and I asked if the rumors were true, or asking people who went to the rival high school about it and saying how it differed from my high school).
I was almost tempted to accuse that manager of a HIPPA violation when she asked why I had a doctor's note and why I was walking funny (I'd had my toenail removed and wearing closed toed shoes didn't allow me to walk in a way that reduced the pain, so I had to get creative in how I was walking to avoid being in pain).
Yeah, and it's super frustrating bc people claim that all the time so when a HIPAA violation DOES happen no one takes it seriously.
I've been the victim of it. Multiple times. The healthcare in this area is truly awful. And absolutely no one believes me. One time I technically had signed off on something, but all I saw was the electronic pad and I was told that I was signing off on one conversation about one topic only. I later found out that 5 conversations had happened, 3 of which covered topics that put me in danger.
HIPPA violation is me going to your doctor to find out why you’re admitted. It’s not a violation if I ask YOU directly. The violation comes from them telling me, not you. A violation is your friend or family member (who is a doctor) telling you the name of a patient who is not family.
Regarding carrying/transporting things like swords or other weapons for medieval re-enactments: When declaring the contents of your luggage refer to them as "theatrical props" rather than "weapons." It will cause many fewer suspicions and alarms to go off.
I brought my sparring swords to the UK by declaring them as "exercise equipment."
The rear ending stories reminded me of a story. In middle school my dad picked me up at school. He got the stop light. As he started to slow down luckily he kept the legal safe distance. A woman in front of us hit reverse and hit the gas fast. My dad quickly realized it and he hit reverse hitting the gas as well. It was crazy as I watched my dad reverse down the road as this woman was also going reverse as fast as she could trying her best to line the back of her car with our front. After some time (I want to say about 500 feet, but I was young and freaking out) she stopped dead. My dad stopped, watching her, and waiting to see if he needed to hit the gas again. She just slowly started driving forward again as if her trying to cause an accident did not happen. My dad kept our car in the same place for a while (I think it was to wait until she left). We found out later this woman was trying to cause accidents. She did it every few years to get a new car. She also caused an accident with a kid in the other car so she could get a new car. She knew if she made us rear-end her she would claim she was in the right. I was told she did get a new car. Fishtailed on front of a man causing him to crash into the back of her car.
A different woman got my brother. He was pulling out of the driveway at the age of seventeen. A woman saw and hit her gas. She t-boned him and I saw on our porch. The woman called the cops. It was an old cop and said "Nothing I can do about it. Legally no matter what you are at fault because you were pulling out of a driveway". I came out telling him what I saw and seeing that she even stopped at the end of our street before hitting the gas to cause the 'accident' on purpose. The old cop again said "Because he pulled out it is all his fault". That woman got a new car out of it. The smile on her face. I still heavily dislike that woman. She could have killed someone, but she only cared about getting a new car. The passenger side of my brother's car was crushed so thank goodness I didn't take his offer to go with him.
RE the unionizing one: you can be fired for a wildcat strike or a pre-unionized walkout. However, after your union is certified and before you have a contract (or during renegotiations of a contract) you very much have the right not to be fired for striking or picketing; those are the major ways workers fight for better wages and conditions from their employers. Don’t be scared away from doing the right thing!
Exact details as to what constitutes a protected strike vary so check your local, state, and federal laws before calling one
the frustrating part about trying to maintain a safe distance is that other drivers will insert theirself into the space, causing your attempt to make the distance safer to result in a less safe distance.
I hate when people do that. I've put off getting my license for years because first my parents wouldn't let me, then my step mom worked to terrify me away from driving, and then just seeing how other drive gives me so much anxiety. Sure there are people who don't want to get into accidents, but plenty of people will cut into the safe following distance for what I see as no reason.
My ex was teaching me to drive and would often tell me that I could get pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic and get pissed of when I point out that the speed limit is 55 because we're in a construction zone. And God forbid I got 25 or slower in our residential area with a narrow road, tons of blind spots, and many curves and hills. Going 25 in the down town area and being prepared to break at any second or stopping at a stop sign for the proper amount of time? I'm an incompetent driver and don't deserve my license.
That being said. I'm taking my driver's test this Wednesday and I'm a bit nervous, but it's the biggest step in me moving out of my ex's house.
@@Musical_Pigeonsounds like your ex is the incompetent (and dangerous) driver. Hope your test went well.
I want an album with nothing but people saying "you can't record me!"
I would watch it
The entrapping child predators one reminded me of a situation a while back. One of those TH-cam vigilante group types set up 'a sting' using a girl who was over 18, but looked maybe younger. They would tell guys on dating sites she was 15 (even though they had to state she was 18 to publish the profile) and see if they came to meet, record them and out the video online. Doesn't always help, often hinders, police investigations... but sure.
This one time they forgot to say that she was underage. So they were blasting the guy in public but he had done nothing wrong. Her profile said she was 18, he was 18, the bait girl was actually 18, and he had no reason to believe otherwise. 🤦♂️
So that was a stupid and potentially harmful mistake but what I'm really concerned about is the fact that this somehow hinders police investigations. These people are doing exactly what the police would do, so if that's somehow harmful, then maybe that's the police's fault.
Many times people do it wrong, or tip off the person, or don’t get police involved and let the person get away Scot free. I read something in a book a while back about it and it made total sense.
A good way to think about it is if you are a cattle rancher and your trying to round up your cattle and another, less experienced cattle rancher comes into your field and brings your cows across to his field, and then is like “I wrangled them for you” it just makes your job harder
Not a lawyer but I know that it isn’t illegal to just be a bystander. Don’t know why so many people think it is illegal to just not interfere.
Edit: above isn’t a true everywhere, also as a chef myself I can confirm that I have a cooking pistol.
I think the bystander laws have also been under review in several areas because of criminally negligent bystanding, so it’s doubly unclear where what rules apply. As just a recreational cook, I do have a chefs pistol however much like most specialty equipment, I don’t know how to use it and hurt myself when I do.
@@NewLegacy93 don’t worry, a chef’s pistols is a very high skill tool, i only recently learned how to use it properly after 87 years.
Yup, "duty to act" laws are almost nonexistent except I think for some very very rare instances pertaining to first responders. Unfortunately it needs to stay that way though. If you require people to act, suddenly you put victims at risk of negligent bystanders and bystanders at risk of being sued even when they would be covered by good Samaritan laws.
@@psychickumquat I think most of the failure to act laws coming into place are based on reasonable response (ie filming someone drowning instead of calling for help, or otherwise generally ignoring an event when you’re capable of contacting those able to assist), not so much hopping in the water yourself as that just means another untrained random is in the water, the lawsuit bit is definitely more of a thing in the states
Ctrl-c Ctrl-c from some law site
in Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island, Good Samaritan statutes require people at the scene of an emergency to provide reasonable assistance, such as calling 9-1-1.
Story 8: About nine out of every ten non-frivolous laws (at least here in the US) have to do with whether a person possesses a thing, i.e. owns it or has it with them.
You laugh at the thought of a cooking pistol, but there IS a cooking canon! It's a traditional Chinese device used to puff rice. You put a little pressure chamber over the fire, then when it's hot you open the chamber and ALL of the rice pops at once, causing it to explode out with a huge bang and smoke. A sack is attached for the rice to shoot into. There are videos of it, it's awesome. If anyone knows the name of the device please tell me, I couldn't find it anywhere!
That
Is
EXCELLENT.
Story 38 - I call BS! If there is such a law, it should be challenged in court as causing avoidable deaths, and whoever passed it thrown in jail. Such laws should NEVER exist as it just makes people unwilling to help out of concern for being sued
It's not true, the main case this refers to is a case where someone kept doing chest compressions after the paramedics told them to stop and they'd take over. The patient got a broken rib and sued the chest compressor who didn't follow a paramedics instructions.
about driving at a safe distance, you are absolutely correct, very rarely does it happen, and sadly enough, one of the reasons i don't currently have a license, i am honestly very afraid of being in any accident when i was driving, so i always gave people 1 second per 10 miles (was taught the same rule it seems) but added an extra second, I was pulled over by a cop for driving too slow because i was getting some space between me and the vehicle in front of me, after telling that to the cop, he apparently took it personally, because i ended up getting a ticket for driving too slow every work day from the exact same cop for the next 2 weeks, very quickly got enough points that my license was suspended, all because I actually tried to be safe, i have only ever been in one accident, it was minor, but being in an actually dangerous one has been a worry ever since, sorry for long rant, just now realizing how long I actually typed for, enjoy the video keep it up
Fuck the police.
Thing is, driving too slowly can probably be dangerous too
@@VantaDraws it can be, but most people speed, you're supposed to go a little under the speed limit, not over, but everyone assumes the speed limit is the minimum, which is the exact opposite of what limit means
@@stormjin2242 yep, but that’s what makes it so dangerous. Drivers probably won’t expect someone going so slow
@@VantaDraws yea, but the person actually following the law shouldn't be the one punished, the people actually driving dangerously and speeding should be
Setup a nanny cam after the babysitter asked if her boy friend could come over and help her with her homework.
We went out for 5 hours
I did a review of the nanny cam when I got home. I was not happy with I saw.
She spent all of the 5 hours doing her home work.
🤣
Here's one: In the UK, there is no law explicitly forbidding public nudity. There are public order offences, but that only encapsulates nudity if you go out of your way to shove it in peoples faces e.g. streaking at a football match, whipping your bits out in front of school children. But there is nothing that says you can't be nude and just minding your own business. Theoretically, you could go for a walk around town wearing nothing but your birthday suit and you wouldn't get in trouble. That doesn't always happen though, people will still get arrested for it and have it classed as a public order offence, and therefore the general public thinks public nudity is illegal as a result.
It's a real shame that society has made a taboo out of something so natural as your own body, to the point that everyone thinks it's illegal to be naked except for designated nudist areas.
reminds me of a comic strip where someone was "streaking" all round London.
it also references a silly old song, "The Streak".
@@ericb3157_"Pardon me, sir, did you see what happened?"_
(heavy southern US accent): "Yeah, Ah did."
That first story reminds me of Knives Out, a really good reverse murder mystery that I highly recommend
When dealing with legal situations, always remember that "common sense" is a misnomer. Sense far less common than willful idiocy.
In regards to a lot of the advice in this video it's important to look up local laws because what might be legal in one state can be a felony and another.
1. Like stated above in regards to filming look up your local laws for example where I live it is legal to film people in public but not private businesses or property. For example if you're filming somebody in say a Walmart in one of the employees tells you to stop recording you have to stop recording.
2. In regards to maintaining a safe distance between vehicles I was taught that it was a car and a half length away at minimum.
3. In regards to that confusing CPR question from what I was taught when I took first aid it was about consent. For example if the person is rented unconscious or unable to give consent then consent is implied. If someone is awake and capable of giving consent and they tell you not to help them then that's when you can face legal action.
4.Entrapment is defined as a situation in which a normally law-abiding individual is induced into committing a criminal act they otherwise would not have committed because of overbearing harassment, fraud, flattery or threats made by an official police source.
Hi I love your videos It is the best part of my day
I WOULD WATCH “WILL POWER” SO MUCH
Story 38. To answer your question, the Good samaritan law covers you when consent is given. Or when there implied consent. So like if someone is choking and you offer to help and the shew you away, you can't do anything. But once they pass out, you can because then concent is implied eventhough they refused while conscious.
Some german laws:
While you may not run around naked in public areas, the inside of a car is essentially treated the same as your home, so you are allowed to drive around in public completely naked.
Another thing, you can drive a car as long as you below the maximum allowed amount of alcohol in your blood and as long as you stay below that amount you are legaly allowed to drink alcohol while driving. Also you can loose your drivers licence if you are riding a bicycle while drunk.
There is a law that explicitly allows everyone to arrest someone if they witness them commiting a crime (it's refered as Jedermans Paragraph), though if I'm not mistaken you are not allowed to use restraints on them.
I want to watch Will Power, specially if you are the butler!
4:46 as a spaniard, whose mother has studied law as a career, that is absolutely true. And we see the book thing as a América only thing, like thanksgiving or pbj sándwiches.
Damn ya'll are missing out on PB&J Sandwiches
@@bruhdee8592 probably, maybe Someday I'll try it.
Doesn't Spain have some kind of annual "feast day"?
(btw, I also like PB & honey)
@@Jedidiah_Martin_2 sorry, this was posted at 3:00 am in my country and I couldnt answer. About the feast day, Im not sure. There are days where we eat like pigs, and days celebrating a specific dish (thought this depends on the autonomic comunity, which is like a state). But I haven't heard nor celebrated any "día del festín" Or anything similar. Where have you taken this info from?
@@pabloherranz1795 No info taken from anywhere, it was just honest curiosity; basically I had no idea, so I took the opportunity to ask a person who lives there 🙂
Small aside, my Mom's hometown, the small farming community of Manhattan, Montana, has a potato festival every year in mid-July 😆
In my country in the Philippines where you can sue someone for hexing, not that I am a non-believer of magic and supernatural I just find it comical to accuse someone of witchcrafts because of your misfortunes. One example is you can sue someone for giving you "gayuma" (Filipino version of love spell) cause you are madly in love with the person lmao.
The Good Samaritan Laws (in the U.S., at least) is more about protecting you if you cause further injury to someone while trying to save their life, e.g.: break a rib during CPR, twist their fractured spine so they are now paralyzed while dragging them out of a burning car, etc., and not about requiring your help.
20:43 A person seeking insurance fraud. Could and have in some cases. Choose to stop than back reverse into any said car behind them. This is why driver cams are a game changer and life saver.
yup ive seen videos where they even have a witness just standing at the corner say the guy rear ended them but end up running away when they find out that they have a camera. along with people cutting someone off. they were only able to prove they didn't cause the accident becuase they has a dash cam.
Perjury is a huge huge crime - I think a lot of people have gotten caught on THAT, not even the "real" crime.
Hellooo! Once again here to wish everyone a good day!
I drive bare feet all the time, I just think it’s way more comfortable (they are moved out of the way as to not get stuck under the peddles) it’s made a lot easier because I ware flip-flops when ever possible. And it’s really difficult and risky to drive with flip-flops then bare feet
Sounds unsafe. I'd just keep some spare shoes I can slip on and off inside the car.
I've done this too, for the same reason. I don't regularly wear flip-flops, but the first time I tried to drive in them I was like, "I am totally going to get the pedal stuck between my toes and the sole, or something equally dumb, I need to take these off."
story 2. a good lawyer could argue that the "arrest" was unconstitutional and violated his rights as the law of the land states that you have the right to know at the minimum what you are being charged with and often with maybe a few exceptions who brought the charges on you.
Isn't it meant to be part of the arrest declaration, like your rights? "I'm arresting you on suspicion of murder, you have the right to..." etc?
The thing about consent to help people if your CPR certified is that consent to provide life-saving care is implied if the person is unconscious and unable to verbally consent. I was very recently CPR certified lol
About the law on switchblades in my state they actually are illegal as are stilettos, leverlettos, automatic knives, gravity knives, and butterfly knives. Any other type of knife is perfectly legal so long as you don't have the intent to cause harm.
In my country (Germany), it is not forbidden to drive a car without shoes on - but if you cause an accident, law enforcement is going to take a very close look at whether or not the accident was caused by you not wearing shoes.
I drive barefoot all the time. It's safer than driving with flip flops on. I tuck them under my seat or next to the door. My left foot keeps them from moving around.
😂25:17 You didn't save their life! You ruined their final nap!
1second per 10miles is a lot and impractical. Here in the Netherlands we have a two second rule no matter what the speed you are driving at as the distance automatically increases as you speed up.
Also reaction time does not de or increase depending on speed. You will need one second to respond
DUI, There is no technical legal limit before it become illegal to drive. If the officer says you where intoxicated to the slightest degree even if it is .001% you can still be charged with a DUI. I knew someone that this happened too in Arizona. He only had one beer and tried driving home. He was stopped sobriety tested, even given a breathalyzer test. He was told you are intoxicated to the nth degree and spent the next 30 days in a country prison for a DUI charge.
As a truck driver, the amount of idiots that change lanes in front of you and then stop suddenly boggles the mind. Trucks leave big gaps for a reason and merging into that gap can ruin everybodys day
Story 2: Isn't it part of your Miranda Rights that they have to tell you what you're being charged with?
Eventually - but I think each state has a set amount of time.
2:49 AND 8:35 of my comments. You remember to keep to knowing yours. I'm happy for you.
No. It is your right to be told your charges eventually, but not at the time of that arrest. The cops don't determine the charges, so they can't even really tell you. The DA's office, the prosecutor, they determine the charges after you're booked. The cops only have to justify why the arrested the person to the state, not to the suspect. Charges have to be laid in a reasonable amount of time, but not immediately upon arrest. Miranda rights don't even have to be read at the time if arrest. They never have to be read unless the police intend to interrogate. The rule is that Miranda rights must be read before interrogation of any suspect in police custody. And that technically means if you aren't free to leave and you're being questioned, the cops have to tell you a few specific rights if they want the questioning to be admissable in court, or if they want any of the investigation that was brought about because of the questioning to be admissable in court. You should never talk to a cop, but if you do talk to a cop after they've established that you are not free to leave, either by actually telling you that you aren't, or by physically restraining you, and they haven't read you your rights, then they fucked up, but that doesn't mean you're automatically off the hook. And the rights that have to be read are; the right to remain silent, that your words can be used against you in court, that you have the right to an attorney, and that you will be given an attorney if you can't afford one. That's it. Once arrested or detained, there's usually a timeframe when they have to tell you your charges. They can question you without ever laying charges as long as they have probable cause, and they don't have to provide their probable cause to anyone but the state, and then the state through the courts will tell you the provided reasoning if you fill out the proper paperwork and pay a fee.
@@ShapesWithoutColors that doesn't entirely make sense considering I don't even have to identify myself unless they can articulate a crime I'm being accused of.
Also, I don't have to obey an unlawful order.
@@ShapesWithoutColors Seems to me like this'd work against them; I'd probably invoke right to remain silent anyway, but I'd _definitely_ do so if they wouldn't even say what I'd been arrested for.
In the UK you're allowed a knife with a blade less than 3" & cannot be locked or is fixed. So a
Story 20: chef's pistol... Isn't that how donut holes are made?
For the second to last one all I could think of was "You didn't save my life you ruined my death!" Quote from the Incredibles. 😂
Regarding story 34, here in New Zealand I believe during public holidays, especially Christmas - New Years time of year; police will pull you over for going 1 kph over the speed limit, which is about 0.62mph. I only say I believe because I'm pretty sure it's meant to be enforced year round now. There is a bit of controversy around it because having such a tight leeway means plenty of drivers feel like they need to watch their speedometer so closely as we don't all have the privilege of cruise control, even in my 2016 car I don't have it lol.
Don't forget the old Florida law: "No person shall punch a marlin on the 3rd Thursday of any month UNLESS the marlin tickled you without consent".
I LUV this law 🤣
In Montana, we still have three old laws from the 1800's that are active:
1) A man convicted of looking at a woman "suggestively" may be sentenced to wear a set of horse blinders when out in public for up to a month.
2) Any person convicted of stealing horses or cattle may be sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead, especially if that theft caused one or more deaths.
3) A person released from prison may choose to be given twenty dollars in gold and a saddle upon release. (I understand this option was popular amongst horse thieves)
Video recording may be questionable in most sensitive private environments. But audio is more or likely acceptable. If looking to have a safety net against unjust prosecution in private business or home. Just may not be acceptable in government sector areas. Even though the government operated areas themselves would likely have hidden audio recordings. So even then it's acceptable.
in some US states, recording Phone Calls requires consent...
which reminds me of a story where someone from a telemarketer company complained about being recorded without his knowledge, and the other guy's lawyer responded with a recording of a telemarketer SAYING that HE was recording the call...yeah.
that was in one of those "Lawyers, when did the other side prove your case for you?" videos.
Ahhh my favorite American kitchen utensil, my stirring pistol
the movie we need but did not know we needed
21:31 - I find it really strange that no one in this video (to be fair I did pause at the time stamp) are aware of the “swoop and squat”. I remember there were many traffic collisions caused by this method. If memory serves there were a group of them that occurred in the late 90s/early 2000s.
The method is this: there is usually one driver (though as many as three have been recorded) who follows a target for some distance. They will suddenly swerve their car in front of their victim OR already be in the same lane, they will then suddenly slam on the breaks causing the other driver to hit them.
Yes, there should be some distance between vehicles (as much as a car’s length if memory serves me right) but it wasn’t always that simple.
Back then many cars could NOT stop at the drop of a dime (many drivers still had older model cars) which these criminals were banking on. After causing the accident, they have and will contact the police and have a story ready about how they had to avoid an object in the road e.g.: an animal, a large piece of debris, etc. and the other driver rear ended them. Since there weren’t always witnesses around, it would be a matter of one driver’s word against the other.
HOWEVER, criminals usually want to keep the police out of it and coheres the victim into just writing a check to make the accident go away.
Enough drivers and insurance companies fell for this scam, SO the US (I am almost certain this is the law in many states), that if there is an accident the police should be notified.
This was also around the time that it became illegal for drivers to not have proof of insurance. If memory serves me correctly, that WAS the reason why. Due to the many fraud cases they decided that drivers had to have insurance.
This hasn’t 100% deterred all fraud cases but it did lower them significantly.
So although YES, it is usually the fault of the driver if they rear end another vehicle, if there is even a WHIFF of it being a scam, the person in the front car can and will be arrested.
Note: I am speaking of cases of the accidents that take place on the highway, freeway, or on main streets. If the accident occurred at a STOP sign, red light, or yield signs, that is seen as the fault of the driver who rear ended someone.
Also... HIPAA not HIPPA. Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act
I used to work as a family lawyer in NSW, Australia. One “that’s not a law” I kept coming across in my work is people telling me that like they had agreed or would agree to give their spouse XYZ if it meant they didn’t have to pay child support. Where I’m from, family law agreements are federal. Child support is an entirely separate right afforded by the State government. The law says that if a child is eligible for a child support assessment, the federal court is FORBIDDEN from making any child maintenance orders - in other words orders superseding or circumventing the state governments assessment of child support.
This misconception meant I was often met with people who were outraged that they were getting child support assessments from the government because they believed they had already paid their spouse an amount in lieu of child support, often meaning they felt like they were paying twice. I couldn’t stop the child support assessment, best I could do was attempt to get those past payments recognised by the government as having been payments made towards child support
Many Good Samaritan laws, such as those in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware, cover anyone who attempts to help in an emergency, while others are specific to certain situations. For example, Alabama’s law only extends to trained rescuers and public education employees unless the emergency is cardiac arrest, at which point anyone can get involved. In Oklahoma, Good Samaritan protection only covers bystander emergency assistance related to CPR or controlling bleeding.
On the hearsay thing, I suspect that the “it must be on video” only applied to the company’s internal firing and disciplinary policies. They’re probably trying to stop employees from making frivolous or petty complaints against other employees. What the company does internally is different from what applies in a Court of Law If a room full of people saw an employee murder someone, HR might not use their testimony to fire the suspect, but their testimony would be admissible at a murder trial in a Court of Law.
I once got overtaken by some lunatic who pulled in right in front of me and proceeded to slam his brakes on. HARD. I'm extremely lucky that there was no other traffic. Meant I could see said idiot idioting from some distance (he was going pretty fast, he was visible behind me for no more than a second) and I actually had somewhere to go. Probably an attempted crash for cash.
It really IS possible to force someone to rear-end you, especially if they're paying the average amount of attention.
Haha mainly facts dude you should be the narrator for will power
Seconded. Also solves the "wanting to die in a movie" thing.
I did get baited into rear ending someone. Didnt fight it bc i was already dealing with too much and there was no cameras nearby. But the dude absolutely did bait me.
Stopped at a red light, he was 2nd in line i was 3rd. Light turns green, he begins moving. Prior to either of us moving i was behind him at the distance suggested by drivers ed, even a bit more than that. So i saw him move, i start releasing the brake and ease onto the gas. As i do so, assuming he would continue moving like a normal person, i glance at my gas tank indicator so i know if i need to fill up. In the .5 second it took to do that, he had slammed on his brakes. His brake lights were "conveniently" out. Weird, since they somehow were back on afterwards. That doesnt seem legal but okay.
Its fine though, i did have to pay a fine, but he got the real bad ending. All he got me was a fine, but he had to not have his car while it got fixed (i sae the damage and i know the mechanics here- no less than 3 weeks without his car lol)
Driving bare foot feels pretty good actually, I get way more feel that way.
Agree with not riding a motorbike barefoot though, those controls don't really benefit from it amd the potential downside is disastrous.
I dont wear shoes while driveing because i mostly wear flip flop/ sandles which are infact illigal to wear while driving as they can slide between the peddle and your footthus trapping your foot in place
Here in the UK we have a lot of old roads that are only wide enough for one car with hair pin bends. They have a national speed limit that for minor roads is 60 mph for single carriageway. They would be dangerous to drive at these speeds but not illegal. There are at least 3 other laws that you could be charged with if you drove more than 25 mph. This is not the same as a restricted road that is for built up areas at 30 mph
Story 2: That cop was 100% trying to slap "resisting arrest" as another charge and force the person into cuffs
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
"Not unless it works in my favor."
IMO Driving without shoes is better and importantly, safer. The reason being is that you have a much better sense of pressure and feedback on the pedal (An unknown, finicky clutch or sticky throttle cable easily illustrates my point). The drawback, I guess, would be getting a pebble or sharp object underfoot while driving. It's an easy tradeoff decision in my book. FWIW Obviously this doesn't seem as advantageous in winter snow ;). my .02 worth
It's not a chef's pistol... it's a cordless hole punch...
22:35 you said this word pretty good. I’m German btw
Where I live we have the 2-second rule. Basically, when you're driving at any speed, you should be 2 seconds behind someone. When the person in front of you passes a road sign or something on the side of the road, you start counting in your head "1001, 1002." If you reach that same thing on the side of the road before you get to 1002, you're too close. If you make it to 1002 right when you reach that thing, you are at a safe distance.
25:15 for cpr, if they are unconscious you have implied consent
Where I live at, I am one of the very few that do not drive with my bumper one inch from the front driver's bumper. Why is it that I am driving the actual speed limit in the right lane and a reckless entitled driver have to drive so close to me? In the USA our lane directions maybe different than yours. Over here, the police do not pull over people for tailgating. I have seen people tailgating police cars.
USA is a large country. Can you say for sure that cops do xxx everywhere simply because they may do xxx in some small area of a giant land mass?
I’m imagining a film where they’re in a race to the Will reading across the US due to no shows being written out and therefore the others getting more money, think Wacky Races, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, etc.
At the end though they all show up and the ‘prize’ is worthless after their escapades through the film destroyed it’s value.
story 8: "possession is 9/10th of the law" refers to the practicalities of how ownership disputes play out -- it's not a legal doctrine. If the court does not have compelling evidence of which party is the rightful owner, then the party possessing it will likely be presumed to be the rightful owner. There are also various forms of adverse possession laws, where a party can lose the ownership of property if they don't use it but others do (without permission). In effect, the owner has conducted theirself in such a way that their ownership has no meaning, and there are sometimes laws which override that ownership in some such situations.
I get annoyed when people tell me possession is nine tenths of the law when it comes to a laptop or some other item.
While it's true that if I'm claiming someone stole something from me I'll have to prove that item was mine. (Innocent till proven guilty) proving the item is mine may be fairly simple. Having a picture of the item in my house could very well be enough.
Serial numbers and such are also good.
@@johnclaybaugh9536 For a laptop, I think knowing the password might suffice. If not, then having a bunch of pictures of yourself on there definitely will.
@@dmgroberts5471 truth. If a laptop is used mostly by one person that person would have the most knowledge of what is stored in it. Names of files, etc.
I didn’t hear it as a second for very 10 miles per hour, but a car length. So if you’re traveling at 65 miles per hour, you should be about 6.5 car lengths behind the car in front of you.
Isn't that first story just The Westing Game?
I keep getting conflicting answers as to whether or not cops have to tell you why you're being arrested. I'm going to assume it depends on the state. Also, apparently defensive weapons are illegal in France. Time for another revolution? And btw, about diatracted driving and talking to passengers, how are cops going to know you were even talking to passengers?
Slowpoke law does exist in several states. If youre unsure, travel with the flow of traffic
There is a law saying you can not eat while driving wtf
Not a 100% sure, but "i saw Y do Z" is a witness statement, while "X told me Y did Z" is hearsay. A witness statement pertains to what you yourself have witnessed, while hearsay is passing on rumors you've heard. If X told you Y did Z then either X or Y need to give statement to the fact, or it is practically useless. But a witness statement isn't completely useless without video evidence.
If I said, “I don’t feel good”, my dad would pinch my arm and say, “You feel fine to me”. If I said I was tired he did the Hi tired, I’m dad, glad to meet you, thing.
On the USA oy is called the doctrine of Implied Merchantability.
I think I was taught that you should be able to see the license plate of the car in front of you. If you can’t see it, you’re too close
story 20 12:49 uhhh yeah there are laws. four-6 inch blade can be carried, depending on where you are. how wide is your hand?
23:40 4th Amendment is the Freedom of your Persons, Possessions, and Documents to not be Unlawfully Charged for a Crime. Transparency is key when out in public.
Story 2: what _were_ the charges?
I work in IT. People yelling HIPAA about any personal information is the bane of my existence and withholding simple information like your user ID for the system MEANS I CANT HELP YOU
Isn't HIPAA about medical stuff?
To be fair from the other side of that the consequences for allowing someone to view HIPAA related documents are really intense so it's not like their fear is unfounded. You could probably grease the wheels by letting them know you are authorized to deal with that material. Some people are just idiots though and nothing you say will get through. Best of luck.
"Road tax" DOES NOT EXIST. Entitled pinheads in cars keep claiming it to justify violence and terrorism against pedestrians and cyclists. If there WERE (and should be) "road tax", it would ONLY apply to cars and trucks, since their weight is what destroys the roads. Pedestrians and cyclists should get a rebate since they're not causing damage.
6:10 - Someone can't grasp "possession is 9/10ths", i.e. "It's mine, not his!" and is believed after stealing?
7:35 - Nail polish. Cool.
I don't know about the rest of it but you do have to have your dog on a leash in public areas
story 38 you can not be charged with any type of murder or assault if you give someone CPR. or if someone is going to kill them self you can restrain them to prevent them from harming them self. but this OP might not live in the USA.
Yeahhh this person clearly doesn't know what entrapment means 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ 6:42
21:30 100 percent agree on the travwlong at a safe distance, however it is possible for someone to cut you off and slam on the brakes. Thats the only scenario i can think of where collision from behind would not be the fault of the rear driver
So, the service dog 'leash' rule is incorrect, at least in the USA. It depends on what the dog does as a task for the handler.
Per the ADA website : "The service animal must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered while in public places unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the person’s disability prevents use of these devices. In that case, the person must use voice, signal, or other effective means to maintain control of the animal. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair may use a long, retractable leash to allow her service animal to pick up or retrieve items. She may not allow the dog to wander away from her and must maintain control of the dog, even if it is retrieving an item at a distance from her. Or, a returning veteran who has PTSD and has great difficulty entering unfamiliar spaces may have a dog that is trained to enter a space, check to see that no threats are there, and come back and signal that it is safe to enter. The dog must be off leash to do its job, but may be leashed at other times."
The one about the knife being considered a weapon if it's for defense thing reminds me of a (genuinely stupid) set of laws in Ohio.
In Ohio, all knives were legal as of ~4 or 5 years ago except for switchblades. HOWEVER, you could not/cannot carry a knife if it's more than 3.5 inches long (understandable) or if it is being carried for the intent of harm. This includes if you're carrying a knife in case you need to defend yourself.
Do I have to remind people remotely knowledgeable of the US (or memes) that Ohio is both a red state and oh yeah a part of the US? Where guns are legal, and especially legal if you carry in self-defense. AND IT'S EVEN LEGAL TO CARRY ANYTHING THAT ISN'T A HANDGUN WITHOUT A LISCENSE. "Oh, you're carrying a gun around in case someone tries to assault you? Fine, indeed, good sir. Oh, but that knife? Oh, that's *also* in self-defense? Come with me."
A great example of this is the muh property bros. The idiots that think they can shoot anyone who so much as steps across their property line or that because they own the property that they can do anything they want because it's "private property". In the US this is super common. The reality is that you still need permits and to follow local, state and federal codes. As far as shooting you can not do so even in a castle doctrine/stand your ground state unless there is a genuine danger to you. You can not for instance just shoot a hunter who trespasses unless they are actually threatening you, you can ask them to leave and call the cops if they don't though. You do hear a lot of idiots who seem to think otherwise.
7:08 anybody that knows what the proper sense is, doesn't know what HIPPA is. Those working in Healthcare have to abide by HIPAA Regulations, and not divulge Patient Information. Otherwise they can and will be subject to Scrutiny, under HIPAA Guidelines.
2:49 Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a Crime or Probable Cause for Arrest. Covered under the 1st or 4th Amendments. It is NOT Legal for cops to make false arrests. Please remember to record every and all your encounters with Law Enforcement. Otherwise you will lose your civil rights. I have autism, and have inherently known that fact since I was too young to know. I have told things before I truly knew the facts behind them, and they helped people out. I am surprised to This Day! 8:35 Same 1st and 4th Amendment Rights. They're the scope to limit the Government's Overreach to their masses.
Police: Sir is that a weapon?
You: No sir, it's a tool.
Police: Why is it a tool?
You: I use it for cooking.
Police: Sir it's a Pistol, not a knife.
You: I konw, I need to shoot the pig before I toss the bodies on the fire.
Police: That's not a good reason, hand it over.
You: Start running, I like moving targets.
LATER THAT DAY.
Waiter why have my pork ribs got an odd shape and my pig trotter has a size 12 boot on it?
Police: Sir is that a weapon?
You: No sir, it's my tool.
Police: How is that a tool?
You: It's my tool sir, can you let it go.
Police: Sir it's a club and not a tool.
You: Thank you, now can you let go of my penis.
Police: Hey what, oh shit, opps, SORRY.
You: Life can be hard when you are blessed as a man.
The “weapons carry vs. weapons transport” and the thing about when a knife is a weapon, that’s similar in aber many but Germany actually has a clause about allowed blade-length, although with exceptions, such as any and all one-hand knives or automatic/ gravity knives are automatically illegal and can only be transported, never carried in public. They are free to use in your private property or a private property where you have permission to be and use them.
Cool to learn France is similar there 😊
LOVE seeing so many German laws here, yay Deutschland
Two things.
#1 You ARE required to have a service dog on a leash if you are PHYSICALLY able to. Service dog laws require that you have positive control over your service dog at all times. Those tiny little dogs you see that people claim are service dogs aren't in fact service dogs, most likely emotional support if anything.
#2 Unionizing doesn't require any tactics. The only thing required is a vote of the workers. The hardest part about unionizing is if the vote passes and the workers decide to unionize it can take forever (I mean YEARS) to get the employer to agree to and sign the initial contract. The easiest way to unionize is to convince the company to go union, if the workers don't want to unionize then they can be replaced by the union (assuming you don't live in a right to work state which totally fucks you if you do.)
23:30: That's just wrong. Implied consent. If they're able to refuse help, then you don't have consent. But if they're unable to consent or deny, implied consent exists.
Also, earlier, assuming you're anywhere in North America, statutes all over have leeway baked into speeding laws to compensate for the imperfection of speedometers. The minimum is generally 5mph
It's ok to break a rib while doing CPR. It's basically inevitable. If you're doing it right, it's going to sound awful and like you're hurting the person. Keep doing it. CPR is not performed on live victims. It's performed on dead people, to keep their brains from completely dying until they can be revived. They have stopped breathing and their heart is not beating. They'd rather have a whole set if broken ribs than be dead.
21:15 I remember this one got that didn't like that we were going the speed limit and he swooped in front of us and brake checked us not giving us a chance to "maintain a safe fallowing distance".
This is why I recommend dash cams never know when it can save your ass
@@brotherhoodofsteel4751 yeah I kept telling them and this incident was one of the incident that got them to put one in. I even told them that our insurance would give us a discount.
-That pervert was taking pictures of me while I was walking on the street
-Sorry but that is not illegal
-But I was naked
-Ok, so... let me check the book.
Okay real talk. I hear you from Mainly facts and mostly facts. Are they both yours? Is one just copying you? I'm confused.