“You must wait 24 hours before filing a missing persons report.” No, if you think someone was kidnapped, call 911 or some emergency services right away
Actually when my sister went missing a couple of times, my parents were made to wait and report it again the next day. Then when they would find her, we wouldn't get any word. (she was over 18 but still lived at home) Edit: I'm sure if it was a kidnapping it would be different (like if we had evidence or saw something) but the words were to report missing.
@@timward2647 It depends heavily on the context, like who it was who is missing and what their normal schedule is like. If a kid doesn't show up after school when their bus drives past the house, that's an immediate concern. If an adult has been missing all afternoon after leaving work, that might not be an issue since they could have just decided to go out somewhere instead of sticking to their usual schedule. So the real rule of thumb is to report it when you notice a relevant gap in appearances from someone, which of course is going to be highly subjective and so sometimes run into the issue you describe where the authorities don't see it as the problem that you do.
@@TheSquareOnes While true, you can still make the call, when you first notice that something might be amiss, even if you will be told to wait. Keeping in mind the time of the initial phone call can help to establish a timeline when/if the police do start an investigation. It gives the police, or whomever the investigators are, an initial jumping off point they can officially point to.
Not true. If this was the case then you could be charged immediately upon leaving prison solely on account of having a criminal record (which I would think satisfies the definition of being a criminal more than anything else).
The Karens yelling about how they are going to sue the people recording them making fools of themselves are the best. If you are on public property or even private property where recording isn't expressly prohibited by the owners then you can be recorded.
While this is true in the USA and UK, I know for sure that it is not allowed in my country and most other countries in the EU. You have to ask permission to record someone in public (and certainly on private property), even for security camera's.
I totally get why people would be allowed to film, and even take pictures, of others in public without their consent but that law totally backfires some times. I remember another video where some pervert was caught taking pictures of women up their skirts/ dresses without their consent. You would think this would be illegal but he was let go with his pictures, or video don't remember what exactly it was, because even though he would bend down behind them or whatever to get the pictures it was considered taking their pictures in public which was legal.
@@tonyblake7569 what kind of judge looked at this case and thought "yep, totally gonna let this guy go with the pictures on a technicality"? I'd like to see your source because I... Do not believe you. That is not a case of recording in public, it's sexual harassment -- which isn't legal. R/quityourbullshit
@@thetheory6159 like I said I saw it in another video. Yes it could be a lie, I'm not a lawyer so unlike you I don't know every law, but if you actually look it up instead of accusing me of bullshit you might find several articles like it took me all of 5 seconds to find. Since you need others to find sources for you here's one I found. www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.htm
People still thinking undercover cops have to tell you they're cops if you ask. They only have to tell you they're a cop while doing something only a police officer can (like arresting someone). They do not have to admit to being a cop while pretending to be a drug dealer.
CurtisAlfeld But they might further incriminate them self if the initial arrest is a citizen’s one and would make them think they’re just a citizen not a cop
@@fatboy9163 they ruin the lives of... drug dealers? you realize drug dealers probably ruin way more lives (depending on the type of drug) than an undercover cop ever will
In Scooby-Doo Mystery Inc. a lot of the villains really just scare away people so that they can commit crimes. It makes no sense that the town hated the gang for “driving away business” when I’m fairly sure in one episode the person that they caught was robbing a bank and in a lot of them the villains straight up kidnap people. I would understand if the annoyance was because these inexperienced teenagers were interfering with police protocol but they aren’t because the police don’t really do anything most of the time
@@memeworld9600 For context, the town they were in was a tourist trap based on the super/para-normal, and all the villains dressed up in such a way, and the mayor would want to keep the ruse going for business purposes.
Absolutely correct. It is "illegal" for an employer to fire you, or discipline you in any way for discussing your wages with your co-workers. That being said, if you think for a second that they aren't able to fire you for almost any barely-existing infraction of company rules very shortly thereafter (yes, everyone would know why you were fired, but a lawyer would be able to prove nothing), then you're so naive that I know a number of Nigerian princes who have a proposal for you. If you're going to discuss wages, do it with someone you know you can trust, and do it away from company property.
@@pauldavis9387 NY is the same. The claim is that At Will somehow empowers workers, but its purely to assist employers in avoiding laws that would hold them accountable.
A popular excuse for firing is some combination of "worked too slowly" and "goofed up work done". I had a boss one time who threatened to fire me for not enrolling my son at the day care I worked at, but instead at a rival (better) day care. She then fired me for "not getting along with others" (there was an isolated misunderstanding I apologized for IN FRONT OF HER) and "taking breaks that were too long" (up to sixteen minutes! Well, let's see, walk to bathroom, one minute, pee, two minutes, take a dump, five minutes, change tampon, two minutes, change pad, two minutes, clean up after all this nastiness, one minute, wash hands thoroughly and dry, take some Advil, two minutes, walk back to room, one minute... Yeah, depending on time of month, could totally happen.). She then hired me back, but threatened to fire me again for the same reason. Tried to find a lawyer to help me. Crickets. No one was interested in trying to represent me. I guess workers are supposed to be good, compliant little slaves all the time. Even (in the current situation) if it kills them.
@@misspat7555 It's stories like this that make me wonder how you can still have some people claim that capitalism is a meritocracy with a straight face.
@@mksmike Capitalism, in the abstract, is something of a meritocracy. But then, so is communism and so is socialism. In the abstract, all of those work perfectly. But we don't live in the abstract. None of them work perfectly.
@ there are some scams where a few cars box in a mark, and then the car in front stomps on the brakes. With nowhere to go the mark rearends the braking car and gets sued by the 'injured' people in the front car. Dashcam video has exposed teams that are doing this.
Late reply but in the state I live in (Virginia) its automatically ruled as your at fault if you rear end someone. There are other states like this as well I can’t remember all of them. You can however, try to fight it in court. But typically it’s more cost effective not to.
@@xandraislova Well it seems to me that if you rear end someone it *should* be your fault. As far as brake checking goes, even if someone locks up their brakes you should be able to stop if you're not following too closely unless your brakes fail or you're not paying attention (which would still be your fault).
@@uuouuo5480 For the most part, I agree. A lot of that falls on not maintaining a safe following distance. That said, if someone cuts you off and then slams on his/her brakes, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.
Had to laugh at the "reading of the will" bit. When my grandmother died, my mother and aunts had to _arrange_ a "reading of the will" to appease their brother. They totally should have hired a mysterious blonde.
@@lncompetentGaming well you phrased it that "when you know the law you view everything differently" and as I said you can know the law and not be a lawyer, basically You can view things differently and not be a lawyer
@@technounionrepresentative4274 It the difference between thinking of things in terms of what is permited (or not barred) and thinking about what you should do (rights VS responsibility) Which btw bring to the caveat about no requirement to warn the blindman. There a huge exception where you have either a job or training the creates a duty to assist. The crossing guard that didn't warn the blindperson of the bust is looking at legal troubles
Exactly, the profanity filter is working too well, makes me wonder how it would handle words of a similar make like assistance, assessment, assignment and assassin.
“Having s*x is illegal!” Is the most strange argument that I hear used time and time again, mainly by Karen’s interjecting into a young person’s life. (Not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure we all know that this is incorrect.)
yeah, I don't know the laws in other countries, but in So-called Australia as an underage person you can be with another underage person of your age, and obviously aren't a criminal or anything if someone older/with more power takes advantage of you, and once you're 16 you can be with anyone but until you're 18 you need parents consent to get married to someone else. stay safe.
the first one reminded me of 21 Chump Street, when Naomi an undercover policewoman got a kid get drugs for her and when he wanted to give it for free she made him take the money so it was an actual real dealing. I will forever be salty about that, and the fact that it’s a true story.
There have been cases where homegrown terrorists were forced into it. "I was talking about it. Just blowing off steam. Then some guy got me a van. Then got me the 'bomb'. Then got me the map. Then kept asking me when I was going to do it. They asked and asked and asked and I finally broke and was going to do it and they arrested me". It begs the question on what you're supposed to do "So. I was talking about doing XYZ. Then someone gave me the stuff to DO XYZ. Who do I go to that won't get me instantly arrested for conspiring to do XYZ? If they can get stuff to do XYZ how do I say no without ABC happening to ME?"
You know the even crappier thing was her reaction was she didn't have any regrets about it because, "these kids need to wake up, they cant be doing this" Which she does have a point, girls arent worth felonies; but she literally turned a posession charge into an adult drug deal made on school grounds.
For the sovereign law thing, just explain to them that if the laws don't apply to them, they also don't apply to someone doing something to them. Ex: Regular laws punishes people who steal or murder other people protected by those laws. So if the laws don't apply to you, they don't protect you either. After that speech, most people rethink that position...
I've seen videos of sovereign citizens who actually think that they are exempt from the law, but others are not. So this would most likely just fly over their heads. Sovereign citizens aren't the brightest bunch.
there was an incident where i live recently where someone declared they were "sovereign" (i live in asia so this isn't common at all) they were sent to a mental hospital after being arrested
I actually looked up the "sovereign citizen" thing, and the movement (or at least the way the movement _started_ not necessarily what it is now) is not a rejection of _all_ law, just statute and regulatory law Basically, they claim that only common law applies to them (common law being the precedents decided by courts) and that the "local county sheriff has more power than the federal government" and "the federal government is illegitimate" (also a rejection of more or less all forms of tax as unconstitutional^, which I can sympathize with) Some of the arguments kind of make sense (especially for someone like me who believes that the power distribution in the US should be focus more on the state/local level) but I still don't know how they got the idea that federal law simply doesn't apply to them ^Technically, direct federal income tax _was_ ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court (this ruling only applied to income from land and personal property) but this ruling was made _before_ the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment grants congress the power to levy a direct income tax, and since it's an amendment, it's actually in the f***ing constitution Sure, there can be a legitimate argument about whether or not congress _should_ have that power, but the fact of the matter is that they do, thinking it's a dumb law does not change the fact that it is a law
@@Deathnotefan97 it's more that "because they didn't sign anything or agree to any terms" enacted by the government, they thereby are not subject to them...which to some extent should have some consideration for those with birthright citizenship since no, you did never agree to anything prior to coming here
I'll never forget the time a cop talked to us about crime prevention in high school, and the way he warned all of us about the difference between negligence and apathy. "It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's how you're an asshole that's illegal."
@Hamburglar the exiled Also wrong. People can and will take legal action against you. Freedom of speech means that you can't be persecuted by the state for criticizing the government or a politician, just that. Jobs can fire you based on stuff you say, same with schools expelling students for online comments. This whole "what I say don't have legal consequences" is a big misconception that loses people money and opportunities all the time.
@Hamburglar the exiled Not quite right, slander, libel, death threats, all legally actionable, only protects some speech from government action. Sone other laws protect employment in some cases but those aren't the 1st amendment
@@mikalokasso The criticism part is another important qualifier, since the government can prosecute some speech like threats, hence many cases involving the distinction between protected and non-protected speech.
“Are you a cop?” “No” “You know you have to tell me if your a cop right?” “Yeah I know that, now how about that cocane?” “Yeah I sold out, come back later.” “Really? To who?” “Some guys who claimed to be cops.”
Not a law, but it's funny when people see a Ford Crown Victoria and say, "oh look, an undercover cop." No. Believe me, a crown vic is the LAST car an undercover would drive
There is a difference between unmarked and undercover. Detectives and senior members of the department often drive unmarked cars. Undercover cars are often taken from impounded cars.
We had a bizarre situation with the car my husband owned when we got married. When we had been married for a little over a year, we moved the family in with my mom while selling my trailer and seeking an apartment. Three cars at one house meant his car parked in the street. A guy came by one day while I was at work and said he had hit hubby's car the night before, thinking it was a tree. WTF!? It was pretty obvious he must have been drunk and wanted to sober up before announcing that he had sideswiped our parked car. He also tried to get us to not contact his insurance and to use his buddy to fix up our car, don't worry, he would cover it. Well, that became quite the mess when I went to a couple reputable auto repair shops in the area and got estimates roughly three times what the guy was offering, which of course he didn't want to pay. Police and his insurance both got involved and I never heard from him again. Then, day before sideswiped car is due to be repaired, my husband is delivering the Sunday paper in a little side alley. Man whose driveway opens into alley backs out in front of hubby, proceeds to stop sign. Hubby follows behind, as you do on a road. Stops behind other driver. Other driver must have remembered he needed something from house and, unused to other cars using alley/having not seen hubby? proceeds to throw it into reverse and hit the gas. Crunch. Hubby's car is now totalled. Fortunately, this was an upstanding sort of fellow (not like guy #1) who claimed full responsibility, because who would have believed that a car, stopped at a stop sign, would promptly reverse and back into the car stopped behind it rather than getting rear-ended? Anyway, since an assessment had already been done following the first accident, it was a relatively straightforward procedure for both insurances involved to pay up, the old car to get scrapped, and for us to spend a couple weeks in a rental until we could purchase ourselves a new car. 2/10, would not do again, but makes for one heck of a story. 😁
This varies from State to State (I am speaking from my state, Connecticut). But, I work for my state's unemployment office and many people tell me made up laws all the time. - "My employer fired me illegally, he didn't give me three warnings!" There is no law that requires three warnings, that would be policy of the employer and there is no law that requires the employer follows their own policy. It is always fun watching people then go "My employer doesn't need to follow his own policy?" I am like, yeah, there are the one who wrote it. Unless you have a contract (which would make it a civil matter), your employer's policy is just that a policy. - "They didn't show up for three days, so, by law, they quit!" Not a law, it was at one point as the state did have what was called a Constructive Quit, but that law ceased being I believe before I finished High School. This is a discharge (being fired) now, unless the person in question admits "Yeah, I quit that's why I stop showing up." - "My employer didn't tell me why I was fired." In Connecticut, they are not required to. They aren't even required to have a reason legally. However, if they contest the collection of Unemployment and tell the state the reason, the state is legally obligated to tell you what the employer stated. - My favorite "It is illegal for you to hold my unemployment!" No, it is illegal to do so without a valid reason outlined by law. If we asked you to provide us paperwork and you refused or ignored us, we can not only hold it, we can deny you it. If we have a report you are working is another good reason. - Since my promotion last year. In regards to asking people where they looked for work, "It is not legal for you to ask me that." ... it is literally my job to ask you that. My job exists to ask you where you applied and where you inquired about work. It is my job to ask you about how you would accept work if you have potential issues with accepting work.
@@13vatra Trust me, my job isn't for a lot of people. And I don't have the patience myself, I just have good coping mechanism. Though, coworkers of mine seem to disagree with my level of patience. They seem to think I have a good amount of it.
The good Samaritan thing in Japan was still true when I was there in 2008. The worry was that if you injured someone while aiding them you were liable, i.e. breaking ribs performing CPR. You also never apologized for something because that meant admitting guilt, and that you were liable for damages.
Reminds me of the Liam Neeson cameo in Ted 2 “Now I understand this Trix cereal box is explicitly for children, is that correct?” “Uh, yeah?” “Is that enforced by law?” So frickin funny
The most interesting one to me going through law school is the idea that ship captains can marry people. You see it in everything from _The African Queen_ to _Star Trek_ but it isn't true. In some jurisdictions, almost anyone has the authority to perform marriages, but ship captains are not among them.
Several jurisdictions do allow captains of vessels registered there to perform marriages, but it is not a general feature of international maritime law
anonygent I was married by a ship captain so you are fucking wrong. It's not legal until you go to the courthouse to get it signed off but you can be married by them.
That WAS the case before WWII, when ships’ captains were also legally magistrates, because voyages even across the English Channel once could take over a day, let alone across the Atlantic. After WWII, the diplomats decided that voyages were too short and/or near land and the automatic magisterial powers were unnecessary.
You are partially correct. Ship captains are not granted any special powers by maritime law, however it is not uncommon for a ship's captain to perform a wedding. Many countries only require that they are registered as a justice of the peace or in some cases, simply a notary public.
I’m from Wisconsin and have a friend who still lives there . Wisconsin’s drinking age is 11 but bars and other places that serve drinks have the right to refuse . My friend has seen 3 lawsuits from Karen’s who for some reason want to damage there child’s brain attempting to sue bars who don,t know those laws because it’s a dumb one
"Employers have to have a reason to fire you, you're protected from unfair bosses." That's not true in most of the US. Basically please research labor protections for yourself instead of taking random coworkers' or boss' word for what rights you do and don't have as an employee.
Most employers have you in the contract you sign that they reserve the right to fire you for any reason they want. So even if it was illegal it’s not like it would matter for any part time job.
My soon to be ex-wife told me I can't leave the state while we are getting a divorce. I thought she was nuts(she already was in a behavioral hospital twice in the two months prior so you can judge how wrong it is to call her crazy). It turns out, it could be very illegal to leave the state during a divorce if I brought our child with us(we have no children), so she missed the biggest part of that law. What a loser. Better yet, she has picked up a boyfriend and plans on sleeping with him, after claiming we are not married anymore(we still are, I signed no paperwork). Divorce is going to be much more satisfying when she has to explain why she committed adultery.
Not quite, jerk: these videos are made by macro-reading with the narrator programmed to speak most instances of “ass” as “behind”. No fucking duh TH-cam won’t demonetize “assist”, you’ll notice that nobody was saying they would: TH-cam will however demonetize “ass” and it’s far too painstaking to comb through the video and make the narrator only censor certain words, so they just do it by macro command, hence the narrator mistaking “assist” as “behindist”.
@@vincentheartland2088 Are you this big of an idiot? First, read the first reply in this thread. Second, "assist" is one word, with no spaces in between. Literally EVERY text-to-speech engine can differentiate between "ass " and "assist." This was intentionally done by whoever made this video.
I had a class in college where the teacher was 40 minutes late. Half the class was gone. But the thing was it was a 3 hour class that met once a week. If you bail, you effectively missed a week of classes. Another group tried to leave but was intercepted by the teacher as he came down the hall. The way I figured, I had nothing better to do anyway and if I left, I'd have to do work anyway and it would be on my own time. So I stuck around.
ah the infamous "You can't film me" , "you need my permission to film me" , "i will sue you if that gets online" , "you have to pay me if you upload that online" basically the bs that you cant film or photograph them in public... , "you have to tell me if you are a cop" . *edit* ah and the "cops can't lie to you they are bound by law to tell the truth" ... i mean with all the footage nowadays you would expect that lie to have been stomped dead
Pretty sure where I live there is a law about that, but it's about uploading to the internet without the permission of the people in the video, not filming them without permission.
@@dartonmagnusson5783 It more the no bad intent. If you use for news purposes that protected, but you can use the likeness including an photo of someone for commercial purposes without consent. The main laws about recording in public is doing so secretly' that where you get into one party and two party consent laws
4 ปีที่แล้ว +3
reminds me of a "dumb criminal" story: an undercover cop had a hard time keeping a straight face as the crook he was after spouted out a WHOLE bunch of silly stuff like that, then said "i can smell a cop a mile away" while less than 3 feet from the cop. a few days later, the cop pulled out his badge, the crook's eyes got really big, then the cop leaned forwards until their noses were ONE inch apart, then he said, "how do i smell from here?"
the no phone call law is so weird, I know a young adult that was late in town, minding his business, when someone tried to steal his bag, they got into a fight, someone called the police and both ended in the cell overnight. This can literally happen to anyone, it wasn't even that late at night, and he was not permitted to contact his family or his girlfriend.
It's not so much a law as it is a lack of one, they aren't required to give it, nor are they restricted from not giving it, but in that particular case sounds like a dick move, a lot of it is down to the people involved.
A friend of mine believed this "law" when he was buying weed years ago. He met up with the dealer, and was afraid he smelled a bit rank, so he gave himself a sniff, and the dealer thought he was talking into a wire. Fortunately, the dealer also believed that that was a law, because a quick response of "I'm not a cop,!" chilled him right out.
15:55 I'm french and I confirm this! It also applies when you don't help someone in danger if you have the PSC1 (Prévention et Secours Civiques niveau 1), which is the Prevention and Civic Assistance level 1 that...idk if it's the case everywhere but I and all my acquaintances were obliged to pass it.
Imagine spending 5 years in French jail because you saw someone about to get hit by a bus and you scream out the only French words you know. OMELETTE DU FROMAGE!!
Example of entrapment: an ATF agent begging Randy Weaver to saw off a shotgun and sell it to him. Then arresting him for sawing off a shotgun and selling it.
12:00 In Canada, A police officer is required to identify themselves if requested, and you have no legal obligation to comply or answer any questions other than identifying yourself unless you are under arrest or investigative detention. A police officer can only place you under arrest if they have reasonable grounds and they must tell you what those reasons are if asked. That being said, the Canadian constitution can literally be thrown in the garbage and you can have all your rights stripped if a court deems it necessary for national security Edit: There is also a whole different set of scenarios for people who are driving because driving is a privilege only (it is not a right)
That whole thing about hearsay actually helps make me feel more validated about things I've thought, know, or have experienced. Like my voice matters because I can give a testimony and it be considered actual evidence and not just hearsay.
Yep. If you saw it, or heard the defendant say it, it's valid testimony. Hearsay is, Bob told me that Jim robbed the bank (or Bob told me that Jim told him that he robbed the bank). Think of it as "I heard from Bob that Jim said he robbed the bank". If that's the case, then Bob has to testify.
13:18 You can tell the cop you want to verify by calling non-emergency and asking if there's an active traffic stop for your license plate. Officer will have called it into dispatch for multiple reasons, but most of all, their own safety.
This reminds me, I work in customer service by myself at night. A lot of times when someone gets upset with me they demand my manager's home phone number, stating it's the law that I do it. When I finally tell them to leave they threaten to call the police and I'm like, "please do, and we'll talk about how you're trespassing."
The drinking in UK one makes sense now... me and my friend were in a pub in the UK with our moms and she ordered apple cider, thinking that it wasn't alcoholic. It was, and we were so confused.
"PENN VS MIMMS"... AN OFFICER does NOT need a reason to ask you to step out of your VEHICLE.... and Just because you are in your driveaway DOES NOT MEAN you are safe from getting a ticket... lol
When I was a teenager my mom told me the driving while barefoot BS. I was in a horrible situation the summer I turned 18 and lost a shoe at the lake. I was having a panic attack the whole drive home that I was going to get pulled over and be arrested. So I was this many days old when I found out that it wasn't illegal to drive without shoes. I'm now fifty.
Not illegal but extremely stupid, if barefoot you will either not apply enough pressure to the brakes in an emergency or apply to much and damage your foot possibly irreversibly.
Having spent some years working in retail, I can confidently inform everyone that there is no such law that we must give customers the price on the shelf tag where they supposedly found it sitting. "But I found this flat screen television on a shelf marked $9.99! You have to sell it to me for that by law!" No, we absolutely don't have to. Just to clarify, a manager can reduce a price at their own discretion if they believe it will be good for customer satisfaction in certain situations, but it is always up to the customer to READ the signs and be sure that the shelf tag price matches the item in question. Same goes for big sale signs; they always have a notation of which items they pertain to. The customer has no "right" to purchase that television for $9.99 simply because they claim they found it near some sign that said $9.99.
I have worked for a few companies that told all new hires, and all employees, that discussing wages is a violation of company policy, which could result in termination. "Right to work," states have different laws and legal definitions than other states. I have never known anyone who has won a wrongful termination lawsuit, because, just was said here, the employer just makes up some bullshit, and can afford more than an out of work person. I went to my wrongful termination hearing, when I was fired due to the employer learning of my diagnosis of a serious illness and they anticipated that I would miss significant work hours due to treatments and surgery, the judge was clearly familiar with the family who owned the company. I found out that day that I was the twelfth person to sue this employer for wrongful termination in the previous 11 months. I also found out, after the ruling went against me, that the judge had gone on hunting vacations to Africa and Asia with the family that owned this company. He didn't recuse himself, as he should have. When I appealed the ruling going against me the hearing was in front of a different judge, and this judge not only had gone on international vacation trips for canned hunting, he also was a fraternity brother if the owner of the company, and groomsmen at each other's weddings. My appeal was over before it began.
It is illegal to fire someone for discussing wages/unionizing. However, randomly firing someone who just HAPPENS to be leading efforts to unionize is legal. So is shutting down an entire store or warehouse, devastating an entire community, when that just happened to be where a lot of people were trying to unionize (as Wal-Mart and Amazon have both done). Just say the individual wasn't "fitting in" or the closure was for "business reasons". And now all other employees are intimidated.
Does no one know how to spell quarantine? I swear, every major thing that happens involving some uncommon word eventually leads to people spelling it incorrectly. Google is your friend, people, not Facebook and Twitter lol
An old boss used to be a banker and had a guy come in saying he was a sovereign citizen and he, "has money in the bank. Trust me." There was nothing under the guy's name and when boss man told him several times he couldn't jist give him money the guy looked him in the eye and said, "You have declared war on sovereign citizens." Lol
@22:30 lol! If Danes possessed coherent speech they would be less inclined to beat people with sticks but you are probably right that the wannabe Danes crossing the ice in the winter could do with a few good whacks with a stick.
I'm glad they brought up the "barefoot driving law", I've had some friends who ran into a cop who believed this law exists. They were wearing flipflops, and the officer said it was illegal, and made them change their shoes. The crazy part of this story is is that the only other "shoes" my friend had was a set of roller blades. Yes the police officer made him wear roller blades while driving, because he believed driving in flip flops was illegal, and too "dangerous."
9:34 I've just been given a very evil thought. Thank you. 11:49 Regarding "deepfakes" ... A dear late colleague who was an honest-to-god private detective before he retired and joined my writers group, said that with digital manipulation, it may well come to pass that analog recording will return, just because it's so much harder to fake and edit. (Analog recording, akin to VHS or audio-tape recording, or LP records, etc., recording that actually logs the light and/or sound waves as a variable physical impulse, instead of a digitized discrete value.)
@@RainbowQuartz2.0 No; how did that get into the mix? Robert E. Bailey & his wife were both members of my writers group, and his wife (now widow) still is. She and I finished and edited Bob's final work, _Deja Noir_ (it's on Amazon, by Ignition Books).
Joseph Erhardt when you said you got an evil though at the 9:34 part. And around that time they were talking about men. I thought the evil thought was like a sexual joke or something.
@@RainbowQuartz2.0 Maybe I got the timestamp wrong? It was about having a fake heir show up at the reading of your will. Let me check ... Yeah, that looks right. And that would be a hilarious last practical joke. And if, e.g., a surviving spouse were to approach the woman in the veil, one of the heavies would step in the way and utter something like, "One does NOT approach the Kommisar!" (In a Russian accent, of course.)
But that's so ridiculously wrong. Analog streams are trivially easy to fake: you just fabricate a digital stream, add noise to it to make it harder to detect as digital in origin, and then film it or pass it through a digital to analog converter. There are ways to detect deepfakes, most aren't terribly good at forging even minimally sudden motion outside the face region. There's a way to validate real-time video streams, something to do with intermittent directional flashes of infrared light, which would be impossible to emulate faithfully in a timely fashion. Of course this only validates streams as they happen, not recordings, but it's a start. Less technology can only be equal to or worse than more technology; it can never be better.
My step sister ran away from the mental institution and we got her reportedly immediately. Took 4 days to find her. One of the scariest experiences of my life.
Note: in your rights they say “anything you say can and will be used against you” department’s put under cover officers if a subject is not willing to spill. Watch what you say or you may pick up another charge. Wait for your lawyer and give the detective and DA or ADA everything pertaining to the crime. And ask for leniency. Oh and don’t make stuff up to get you out or to get others arrested on trumped up charges.
2:37 Imagine the guy who offers you cocaine is an undercover cop, so they end up arresting each other, because the buyer is buying the cocaine, and the seller is selling it
If your boss threatens to fire you for talking about your pay then talk about it on purpose in front of them. They fire you, you take it to court, and you retire
Not true. A right to work state just bans union security agreements, which require people who are not union members to contribute to the union for collective bargaining. It is illegal at the federal level to fire employees for joining a union(tho it can happen anyways if the employer can make up a different reason to fire them).
We definitely have unions, Parelli cable had to fight one and destroyed it when they struck a while back. Mack truck built a plant somewhere and said, if they tried to unionize they'd leave. Two years later when they tried to unionize Mack shut the plant down and packed up.
On the good samaritan thing, I was always told that it just meant that, assuming you were qualified to help in a certain way you couldn't get in trouble if that went wrong. Like if you are cpr certified you couldn't get in trouble for bruised ribs caused by performing cpr. The thing that drives me crazy is stories of people saving someone's life and getting sued for it. I'm not claiming they're not true, but the versions of the good Samaritan laws that I've read all specifically protect people against this but never seem to hold up in court somehow.
True to a certain extent in U.S. Off duty off medical premises, you do the best you can with the equipment you happen to have. If at work you can't step onto the sidewalk to help someone in because you are on duty and that is public property. EMS has to bring them in.
Oh, the belief that the First Amendment guarantees you absolute freedom to say anything, under any circumstances. There are actually quite a few exceptions to protect the public good - libel, slander, hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, incitement, and probably a few I'm not thinking of.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +2
reminds me of those crazy self-appointed "first amendment auditors" who SWEAR AT POLICEMEN...
Actually, "hate speech" IS protected under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of individuals burning the flag, wearing "Fuck the draft" on a jacket, and displaying the swastika. Local municipalities have tried to ban "hate speech" on several occasions, and all of those ordinances have been struck down.
Perjury (lying in court) is legal if you're a cop. No, it's not _written_ anywhere, but it's definitely a "de facto" law, given how even proving their testimony false doesn't ever have any effect on the case.
There’s the classic “It’s illegal to remove the tag on your mattress!” Nope. Unless you’re a business selling the mattress you can do whatever you want with that tag.
As a New Yorker, I have never had a police officer ID themselves to me, even in the one case where I specifically asked them to do so. Police do not follow laws, only enforce laws when absolutely required to do so or when it will help them meet a quota, and have no interest in pretending like they care.
that is because making a law is only a third of the process. next you have to: -enforce it sucessfully -prosecute and convict under it sucessfully or else it becomes utterly meaningless. This applies for out of date laws that go unenforced and forgotten to save on the time to repeal them, and for shortsighted new laws, and for valid laws that are actively ignored by either the police or the state. (cops dont arrest for it or the state chooses not to press charges)
Good Samaritan laws protect you when you break someone's ribs while doing CPR. They can't start a lawsuit over broken ribs when that very action has prevented them from being dead. You can't sue someone for breaking your car window to save your abandoned baby in summer.
Most of the scooby doo villains aren't JUST trying to scare someone off their own property. There's something else going on, that makes things go nuts. (Such as, scaring someone off a 'abandoned' area, that they're actually trying to develop). Or scaring someone out of a house that they don't own, in an attempt to fraduluntely get a treasure... Or scare someone into signing a contract. Or scare someone into leaving...because they're a convicted felon!
21:54 I remember having to get cpr certified when I worked as a camp director at a summer camp. The instructors told us and showed us videos during our training that you have to ask people if they are choking and get their permission before giving them the heimlich and same with getting permission to preform cpr. If you dont get their permission and preform cpr or the heimlich on someone, they can sue you. What they DIDN'T tell us is that because of the Good Samaritan law most people who DO get sued for preforming cpr or the heimlich don't get successfully sued BECAUSE of that law.
Yeah, until you read that stupid Reinheitsgebot. They even celebrate their dumb beer laws. I mean, sure, nobody's dying of weird poisoning now, but lead is lead and orange peel is orange peel.
In regards to the good Samaritan laws I took a CPR class in NW Indiana and because of how close we are to Illinois we have to be aware of the laws for both states. When going over the EpiPen the instructor made a big point to tell us that of we are administering an EpiPen in Illinois to hold the hand of the person who we had to administer to and make them "hold" the pen cause the good Samaritan law in Illinois didn't cover us administering the EpiPen and so technically they could sue us if there was some complication with it even though a judge would most likely throw the case out anwyas but to just do it to avoid the headache so that "they adminstered" their own EpiPen.
Honestly a lot of these should be common sense. Of course police don't have to tell you they are police. What do people think the point of undercover police is?
3:18 in my state, it is the opposite of the common misconception (and in the entire USA but especially my state). In my state it is illegal to STIP any worker from discussing their wages in any manner. If you ran aroundyour office saying your wage to everyone and comparing wages, there's nothing that anyone could do to stop you as long as you're still getting your work done and following other company policies.
on discussing wages: when I worked for a very large company, I mean literally one of the biggest in one of the largest industries, so they should have damn well known better... The employee handbook stated it was grounds for termination to discuss wages, and I went to HR and pointed out that it's illegal to prohibit employees from discussing wages, and convinced them to change it to "It is recommended to not discuss wages with other employees as there may be circumstances such as experience, performance, and seniority which can create disparities in wages paid, and these disparities may cause resentment and create a hostile work environment", so if you work for a company with that bit in your employee handbook, that's my fault 😂
My company also has something almost the exact same. HRs response was, 'It's still a violation of our policy and we'll still fire you. Don't like it? Have fun trying to beat our lawyers in court."
Before I joined my current job, a girl told me about how the PREVIOUS boss told her that it was against policy to discuss your wages with fellow employees, and me being an armchair lawyer, I had to explain to her while on the clock in front of a store manager that "Not only are you allowed to discuss your wages with your co-workers, it is against the law for them to let you loose because of it." All I got was a "Oh, i didn't know that" "Yeah, they're banking on that."
You might be amazed what obscure subsections of company policy you are suddenly somehow violating in a manner likely to get you fired for TOTALLY UNRELATED REASONS, though
“Can the restaurant decide if they’re gonna serve the alcohol?” Reminded me of when America changed the smoking age to 21 and my gas station did it early and someone tried to tell us federal law says they can still buy it. Anywhere that serves age restricted items can by federal law refuse the sale to any one for any reason. Just so everyone know.
Indeed they can. My parents owned a bar. They had no problem refusing to serve individuals and even kicking them out if needed. The most common reasons for that were either doing drugs or fighting (they had a zero tolerance policy for fighting to where if a customer did feel like fighting, they would go to another bar to do so and then come back) And of course the general rule of if the customer is being a piece of shit, they aren't going to be served..
15:30 illegal in Germany and I think most other European nations. The french guy explained it well. Also when a crime is happening, you have to step in, if it's dangerous, call for help or the police.
Yeah it's the same in the UK. Especially if you have done any kind of First Aid course you then have a legal requirement to administrr First Aid to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
@@cookeymonster83 Even if it was wildly out of date? I took a course in the mid 1980s, and there is no way that I am up to date on what NOT to do, if I don’t want to blow out a kid’s lungs or something.
Fun fact its not illegal to discuss your wages but in the 30 some odd states that are classified as right to work states it is proper means for immediate termination if your employer expresses the fact that you are not allowed to do so and you willingly discus it anyways you can be fired and will loose any wrongful termination case and unemployment benefits and can even be marked for a bad reference at your next interview to silence the people complaining about unfair wages and neutralize the thought of bringing in workers unions and costing the employer more money and protecting your benefits ect if the company decides to screw you and then use its vast wealth to bankrupt you in court just so it doesnt have to pay you and set an example to others who may think of trying to do the same if they screw them
6:10 barefoot is fine it's usually heels that can get you in trouble legally. Also 40 states plus DC give protection if you are doing drugs and see someone od. How much depends state to state
I live in NC & the police officer that came to my driver's ed classroom emphasized a law like that, but if I recall correctly(it's been about 3 years), it only applied to alcohol & reasonably believing you're the 1st to call 911(the law was the result of lobbying from people whose children had died from alcohol poisoning because the other people at the parties didn't call for help).
I was told that driving in flipflops is illegal very recently. I was shocked but never thought to check. Thankyou for the correction! Very good to know for the summer! "You can go 10 over the speed limit." sounds like someone mishearing "you can go 10% over the speed limit." That's the rule as I know it.
Well, in the US there are a lot more manual speed controls than in the EU, so if you get checked by a policeman who's in a bad mood, they can even give you a ticket for 1 or 2 over the limit.
About the Paparazzi part, though: Keep in mind that this video is heavily leaning towards how things are in the U.S. Because in the EU this "fact" IS actually wrong. Here in the EU you have the right for privacy even in Public. You can NOT just be videotaped or photographed in Public in the EU. The only exceptions are if a) the photo/video, with you on/in it, is of great historical importance or public interest b) if you as a person are of public interest yourself (which is why celebrities and politicians can often -not always- be videotaped/photographed here, too) c) if you are not the center of the video/photo but merely a part of a larger crowd or the likes, that happened to have been filmed/photographed.
Does that mean in "a free country" the hospital doesn't have to put your virus-ridden lungs on a ventilator for not wearing a mask in COSTCO during a pandemic? I think that's a nice give and take balancing of what freedom should be, amirite?
@@shadowmatrix0101 ... and deny the hospital those sweet, sweet federal dollars for uncovering another covid infection? Such healthcare-phobia is so not-woke of you. You should lose your job -- and the ability to earn a living -- for being so intolerant. Nice try with the strawman fallacy. That's not how freedom works. If wearing a mask helps to prevent infection, then why is the country not completely open for commerce? Conversely, if wearing a mask does NOT help to prevent infection, then why are we wearing them?
That is definitely not how personal rights work in this country. There's stuff you're generally allowed to do but that aren't considered a big enough deal if the state wants to regulate it in some way, and then there's _fundamental_ rights, which are recognized as being inextricable linked with the whole "life, liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness" thing that the government generally *can't* interfere with. Except, even if a fundamental right is impacted by some governmental stricture, the stricture may still be upheld if it is determined to be justified by a compelling state interest, and is both narrowly tailored to and the least restrictive method of enforcing that interest. So even if "not wearing a mask" were deemed a fundamental right (which is highly unlikely), there's a very good chance the courts would still uphold the constitutionality of mask ordinances.
Studied a little bit of law in high school and a person who thinks they are being fallowed by an unmarked car can call 911 to get it identified as law enforcement or not.
Ok am i the only one thinking we should have a KNOW UR RIGHTS class at school? Like obligatory class and we'd a least learn the basics and made-up laws...
They used to have one that was called American History. When I was a freshman in high school, American History was a required course, and we spent an entire month on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
in at will states, you really can't risk 'knowing your rights' when it comes to employment. they don't have to have a reason to fire you, so you can't take them to court over wrongful termination in most cases. you just go with it.
“You must wait 24 hours before filing a missing persons report.” No, if you think someone was kidnapped, call 911 or some emergency services right away
Every second counts. If you wait too long, that person could already be dead.
That doesn't really have to do with the subject. It is falsely recommended, but nobody claims it as a law.
Actually when my sister went missing a couple of times, my parents were made to wait and report it again the next day. Then when they would find her, we wouldn't get any word. (she was over 18 but still lived at home)
Edit: I'm sure if it was a kidnapping it would be different (like if we had evidence or saw something) but the words were to report missing.
@@timward2647 It depends heavily on the context, like who it was who is missing and what their normal schedule is like. If a kid doesn't show up after school when their bus drives past the house, that's an immediate concern. If an adult has been missing all afternoon after leaving work, that might not be an issue since they could have just decided to go out somewhere instead of sticking to their usual schedule. So the real rule of thumb is to report it when you notice a relevant gap in appearances from someone, which of course is going to be highly subjective and so sometimes run into the issue you describe where the authorities don't see it as the problem that you do.
@@TheSquareOnes While true, you can still make the call, when you first notice that something might be amiss, even if you will be told to wait. Keeping in mind the time of the initial phone call can help to establish a timeline when/if the police do start an investigation. It gives the police, or whomever the investigators are, an initial jumping off point they can officially point to.
Fun Fact: it is against the law to be a criminal
Not true. If this was the case then you could be charged immediately upon leaving prison solely on account of having a criminal record (which I would think satisfies the definition of being a criminal more than anything else).
@@Purplekjw Not true, after serving your sentence you are no longer a criminal, simply an ex-criminal.
Is there a law that says you are not allowed to break the law? If not then breaking the law is not against the law
Shit
Not if you looting...
I received a speeding ticket for going 2 mph over the limit. I fought the ticket and won based on speedometer error and margin of error on the radar
What one-horse town were you driving through that the cop was so bored he got you on a _2_ mph violation????
Brievel Montague could have been end of the month and they needed to meet their quota.
Brievel Montague it’s common in very small towns for police to give tickets for that little over. They need the revenue lol
@@tyler7992 Oh, I know. I'm sandwiched in between two such towns. God help you if you're going over by so much as .5 mph.
Brievel Montague yeah it’s best to just go five under in such towns
The Karens yelling about how they are going to sue the people recording them making fools of themselves are the best. If you are on public property or even private property where recording isn't expressly prohibited by the owners then you can be recorded.
While this is true in the USA and UK, I know for sure that it is not allowed in my country and most other countries in the EU.
You have to ask permission to record someone in public (and certainly on private property), even for security camera's.
I totally get why people would be allowed to film, and even take pictures, of others in public without their consent but that law totally backfires some times. I remember another video where some pervert was caught taking pictures of women up their skirts/ dresses without their consent. You would think this would be illegal but he was let go with his pictures, or video don't remember what exactly it was, because even though he would bend down behind them or whatever to get the pictures it was considered taking their pictures in public which was legal.
@@tonyblake7569 what kind of judge looked at this case and thought "yep, totally gonna let this guy go with the pictures on a technicality"?
I'd like to see your source because I... Do not believe you. That is not a case of recording in public, it's sexual harassment -- which isn't legal.
R/quityourbullshit
@@thetheory6159 like I said I saw it in another video. Yes it could be a lie, I'm not a lawyer so unlike you I don't know every law, but if you actually look it up instead of accusing me of bullshit you might find several articles like it took me all of 5 seconds to find. Since you need others to find sources for you here's one I found. www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/upskirting.htm
@@tonyblake7569 that shit is insane. Can you imagine being such a scum bag that you defend that douche?
People still thinking undercover cops have to tell you they're cops if you ask. They only have to tell you they're a cop while doing something only a police officer can (like arresting someone). They do not have to admit to being a cop while pretending to be a drug dealer.
You don’t even need to be a cop to arrest someone tho. They could just announce they’re making a citizen’s arrest
@@lacari0805 Yes, but while making a citizen's arrest you must involve an actual police officer as soon as possible.
CurtisAlfeld But they might further incriminate them self if the initial arrest is a citizen’s one and would make them think they’re just a citizen not a cop
Undercover cops sucks. They ruin so many lives
@@fatboy9163 they ruin the lives of... drug dealers? you realize drug dealers probably ruin way more lives (depending on the type of drug) than an undercover cop ever will
In Scooby-Doo Mystery Inc. a lot of the villains really just scare away people so that they can commit crimes. It makes no sense that the town hated the gang for “driving away business” when I’m fairly sure in one episode the person that they caught was robbing a bank and in a lot of them the villains straight up kidnap people. I would understand if the annoyance was because these inexperienced teenagers were interfering with police protocol but they aren’t because the police don’t really do anything most of the time
I never got that
The town hated the gang?
Duuude you just gave me a reason to watch scooby doo again
@@memeworld9600 For context, the town they were in was a tourist trap based on the super/para-normal, and all the villains dressed up in such a way, and the mayor would want to keep the ruse going for business purposes.
wrong scooby doo
Absolutely correct.
It is "illegal" for an employer to fire you, or discipline you in any way for discussing your wages with your co-workers.
That being said, if you think for a second that they aren't able to fire you for almost any barely-existing infraction of company rules very shortly thereafter (yes, everyone would know why you were fired, but a lawyer would be able to prove nothing), then you're so naive that I know a number of Nigerian princes who have a proposal for you.
If you're going to discuss wages, do it with someone you know you can trust, and do it away from company property.
Sublibrarian11918333 KY is an, “At will state.” Meaning you can be fired at any time and your employer doesn’t need any reason at all.
@@pauldavis9387 NY is the same. The claim is that At Will somehow empowers workers, but its purely to assist employers in avoiding laws that would hold them accountable.
A popular excuse for firing is some combination of "worked too slowly" and "goofed up work done". I had a boss one time who threatened to fire me for not enrolling my son at the day care I worked at, but instead at a rival (better) day care. She then fired me for "not getting along with others" (there was an isolated misunderstanding I apologized for IN FRONT OF HER) and "taking breaks that were too long" (up to sixteen minutes! Well, let's see, walk to bathroom, one minute, pee, two minutes, take a dump, five minutes, change tampon, two minutes, change pad, two minutes, clean up after all this nastiness, one minute, wash hands thoroughly and dry, take some Advil, two minutes, walk back to room, one minute... Yeah, depending on time of month, could totally happen.). She then hired me back, but threatened to fire me again for the same reason. Tried to find a lawyer to help me. Crickets. No one was interested in trying to represent me. I guess workers are supposed to be good, compliant little slaves all the time. Even (in the current situation) if it kills them.
@@misspat7555 It's stories like this that make me wonder how you can still have some people claim that capitalism is a meritocracy with a straight face.
@@mksmike Capitalism, in the abstract, is something of a meritocracy. But then, so is communism and so is socialism. In the abstract, all of those work perfectly. But we don't live in the abstract. None of them work perfectly.
With the advent of Dashcams, just because you rear ended someone you may not be at fault. Brake checking and Dashcams have changed a lot of stuff.
@ there are some scams where a few cars box in a mark, and then the car in front stomps on the brakes. With nowhere to go the mark rearends the braking car and gets sued by the 'injured' people in the front car. Dashcam video has exposed teams that are doing this.
Late reply but in the state I live in (Virginia) its automatically ruled as your at fault if you rear end someone. There are other states like this as well I can’t remember all of them. You can however, try to fight it in court. But typically it’s more cost effective not to.
@@xandraislova Well it seems to me that if you rear end someone it *should* be your fault. As far as brake checking goes, even if someone locks up their brakes you should be able to stop if you're not following too closely unless your brakes fail or you're not paying attention (which would still be your fault).
What I am hearing on this thread about rear-ending somebody is that it is often a complicated issue ultimately ruled on by the courts.
@@uuouuo5480 For the most part, I agree. A lot of that falls on not maintaining a safe following distance.
That said, if someone cuts you off and then slams on his/her brakes, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.
Experienced Lawyer: i know a lot about law and rules of....
Kid who watched Ace Attorney: TAKE THAT!
OBJECTION
dude this was the shit back in the day
IGIARI
people who played danganronpa:
NO THATS WRONG
@peppermint dot com SORE WA SHIGAO YO
Had to laugh at the "reading of the will" bit. When my grandmother died, my mother and aunts had to _arrange_ a "reading of the will" to appease their brother. They totally should have hired a mysterious blonde.
Bonus points if the blonde passes the offer.
What movie are they even talking about with the mysterious blonde?
Yeah, my brother is that moronic as well. lol
I like that this wording sounds like lawyers aren't normal people
That's how it's phrased in law school too. Lawyers and normal people. Because when you know the law you view everything differently
@@lncompetentGaming you can know the law and not be a lawyer
@@technounionrepresentative4274 Yeah but there is a difference in knowing the law and being a lawyer.
@@lncompetentGaming well you phrased it that "when you know the law you view everything differently" and as I said you can know the law and not be a lawyer, basically
You can view things differently and not be a lawyer
@@technounionrepresentative4274 It the difference between thinking of things in terms of what is permited (or not barred) and thinking about what you should do (rights VS responsibility)
Which btw bring to the caveat about no requirement to warn the blindman. There a huge exception where you have either a job or training the creates a duty to assist. The crossing guard that didn't warn the blindperson of the bust is looking at legal troubles
Nobody:
Automated voice trying to say “assist”: *behindist*
Exactly, the profanity filter is working too well, makes me wonder how it would handle words of a similar make like assistance, assessment, assignment and assassin.
Apoc5k behindbehindin LMAO
Gotta keep it pg
auroraSLAP Perfectly Garbage
+auroraSLAP
Too PG…
“Having s*x is illegal!” Is the most strange argument that I hear used time and time again, mainly by Karen’s interjecting into a young person’s life. (Not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure we all know that this is incorrect.)
Wat
Dont they know how Reproduction works?
yeah, I don't know the laws in other countries, but in So-called Australia as an underage person you can be with another underage person of your age, and obviously aren't a criminal or anything if someone older/with more power takes advantage of you, and once you're 16 you can be with anyone but until you're 18 you need parents consent to get married to someone else. stay safe.
the first one reminded me of 21 Chump Street, when Naomi an undercover policewoman got a kid get drugs for her and when he wanted to give it for free she made him take the money so it was an actual real dealing. I will forever be salty about that, and the fact that it’s a true story.
There have been cases where homegrown terrorists were forced into it. "I was talking about it. Just blowing off steam. Then some guy got me a van. Then got me the 'bomb'. Then got me the map. Then kept asking me when I was going to do it. They asked and asked and asked and I finally broke and was going to do it and they arrested me".
It begs the question on what you're supposed to do "So. I was talking about doing XYZ. Then someone gave me the stuff to DO XYZ. Who do I go to that won't get me instantly arrested for conspiring to do XYZ? If they can get stuff to do XYZ how do I say no without ABC happening to ME?"
@@Tanis031 Sad, but true :(
There's an actual place called 21 Chump Street? This is first time I heard about it.
You know the even crappier thing was her reaction was she didn't have any regrets about it because, "these kids need to wake up, they cant be doing this"
Which she does have a point, girls arent worth felonies; but she literally turned a posession charge into an adult drug deal made on school grounds.
@@hydrolito it's a musical
For the sovereign law thing, just explain to them that if the laws don't apply to them, they also don't apply to someone doing something to them. Ex: Regular laws punishes people who steal or murder other people protected by those laws. So if the laws don't apply to you, they don't protect you either. After that speech, most people rethink that position...
I've seen videos of sovereign citizens who actually think that they are exempt from the law, but others are not. So this would most likely just fly over their heads. Sovereign citizens aren't the brightest bunch.
there was an incident where i live recently where someone declared they were "sovereign" (i live in asia so this isn't common at all)
they were sent to a mental hospital after being arrested
I actually looked up the "sovereign citizen" thing, and the movement (or at least the way the movement _started_ not necessarily what it is now) is not a rejection of _all_ law, just statute and regulatory law
Basically, they claim that only common law applies to them (common law being the precedents decided by courts) and that the "local county sheriff has more power than the federal government" and "the federal government is illegitimate" (also a rejection of more or less all forms of tax as unconstitutional^, which I can sympathize with)
Some of the arguments kind of make sense (especially for someone like me who believes that the power distribution in the US should be focus more on the state/local level) but I still don't know how they got the idea that federal law simply doesn't apply to them
^Technically, direct federal income tax _was_ ruled unconstitutional by the US supreme court (this ruling only applied to income from land and personal property) but this ruling was made _before_ the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment grants congress the power to levy a direct income tax, and since it's an amendment, it's actually in the f***ing constitution
Sure, there can be a legitimate argument about whether or not congress _should_ have that power, but the fact of the matter is that they do, thinking it's a dumb law does not change the fact that it is a law
@@Deathnotefan97 it's more that "because they didn't sign anything or agree to any terms" enacted by the government, they thereby are not subject to them...which to some extent should have some consideration for those with birthright citizenship since no, you did never agree to anything prior to coming here
I mean tbh id take that deal i get to live outside the law but the law doesn't apply to anyone else for me either yeah lol
8:28 the bot voice man changing «assist» to «behindist» is youtube in a nutshell now
'assist'.replace(/ass/i,'behind')
std::cout
Want - Diverse Content ass = behind its an auto filter
I'll never forget the time a cop talked to us about crime prevention in high school, and the way he warned all of us about the difference between negligence and apathy. "It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's how you're an asshole that's illegal."
The people who insist that the 1st amendment means you can't criticize them.
That argument is literally against the 1st amendment.
@Hamburglar the exiled Also wrong. People can and will take legal action against you. Freedom of speech means that you can't be persecuted by the state for criticizing the government or a politician, just that. Jobs can fire you based on stuff you say, same with schools expelling students for online comments. This whole "what I say don't have legal consequences" is a big misconception that loses people money and opportunities all the time.
@Hamburglar the exiled Not quite right, slander, libel, death threats, all legally actionable, only protects some speech from government action. Sone other laws protect employment in some cases but those aren't the 1st amendment
@@mikalokasso The criticism part is another important qualifier, since the government can prosecute some speech like threats, hence many cases involving the distinction between protected and non-protected speech.
“Are you a cop?”
“No”
“You know you have to tell me if your a cop right?”
“Yeah I know that, now how about that cocane?”
“Yeah I sold out, come back later.”
“Really? To who?”
“Some guys who claimed to be cops.”
Not a law, but it's funny when people see a Ford Crown Victoria and say, "oh look, an undercover cop." No. Believe me, a crown vic is the LAST car an undercover would drive
What if it's so obvious that it's not obvious? 4d chess of law enforcement.
Yeah. Most undercovers in my area have less common license plates. Like those blue ones with yellow text. Also blackout windows
There is a difference between unmarked and undercover. Detectives and senior members of the department often drive unmarked cars. Undercover cars are often taken from impounded cars.
maybe if it was 20 years ago, they havent used crown vic's for how long now?
@@lukewarmwater6412 depends where you are some still do my hometown i think still has a couple
We had a bizarre situation with the car my husband owned when we got married. When we had been married for a little over a year, we moved the family in with my mom while selling my trailer and seeking an apartment. Three cars at one house meant his car parked in the street. A guy came by one day while I was at work and said he had hit hubby's car the night before, thinking it was a tree. WTF!? It was pretty obvious he must have been drunk and wanted to sober up before announcing that he had sideswiped our parked car. He also tried to get us to not contact his insurance and to use his buddy to fix up our car, don't worry, he would cover it. Well, that became quite the mess when I went to a couple reputable auto repair shops in the area and got estimates roughly three times what the guy was offering, which of course he didn't want to pay. Police and his insurance both got involved and I never heard from him again. Then, day before sideswiped car is due to be repaired, my husband is delivering the Sunday paper in a little side alley. Man whose driveway opens into alley backs out in front of hubby, proceeds to stop sign. Hubby follows behind, as you do on a road. Stops behind other driver. Other driver must have remembered he needed something from house and, unused to other cars using alley/having not seen hubby? proceeds to throw it into reverse and hit the gas. Crunch. Hubby's car is now totalled. Fortunately, this was an upstanding sort of fellow (not like guy #1) who claimed full responsibility, because who would have believed that a car, stopped at a stop sign, would promptly reverse and back into the car stopped behind it rather than getting rear-ended? Anyway, since an assessment had already been done following the first accident, it was a relatively straightforward procedure for both insurances involved to pay up, the old car to get scrapped, and for us to spend a couple weeks in a rental until we could purchase ourselves a new car. 2/10, would not do again, but makes for one heck of a story. 😁
Have you postet this under other reddit videos as well? I think I read this before. A few times actually. ^^ But your comment is so new.
This varies from State to State (I am speaking from my state, Connecticut). But, I work for my state's unemployment office and many people tell me made up laws all the time.
- "My employer fired me illegally, he didn't give me three warnings!" There is no law that requires three warnings, that would be policy of the employer and there is no law that requires the employer follows their own policy. It is always fun watching people then go "My employer doesn't need to follow his own policy?" I am like, yeah, there are the one who wrote it. Unless you have a contract (which would make it a civil matter), your employer's policy is just that a policy.
- "They didn't show up for three days, so, by law, they quit!" Not a law, it was at one point as the state did have what was called a Constructive Quit, but that law ceased being I believe before I finished High School. This is a discharge (being fired) now, unless the person in question admits "Yeah, I quit that's why I stop showing up."
- "My employer didn't tell me why I was fired." In Connecticut, they are not required to. They aren't even required to have a reason legally. However, if they contest the collection of Unemployment and tell the state the reason, the state is legally obligated to tell you what the employer stated.
- My favorite "It is illegal for you to hold my unemployment!" No, it is illegal to do so without a valid reason outlined by law. If we asked you to provide us paperwork and you refused or ignored us, we can not only hold it, we can deny you it. If we have a report you are working is another good reason.
- Since my promotion last year. In regards to asking people where they looked for work, "It is not legal for you to ask me that." ... it is literally my job to ask you that. My job exists to ask you where you applied and where you inquired about work. It is my job to ask you about how you would accept work if you have potential issues with accepting work.
I don't have the patience for this shit.. I'd end up fired or arrested.
@@13vatra Trust me, my job isn't for a lot of people. And I don't have the patience myself, I just have good coping mechanism. Though, coworkers of mine seem to disagree with my level of patience. They seem to think I have a good amount of it.
@@darththeo it sounds like what you really have is excellent self control. Raging inside but on the outside calm.
Maybe get some physical stress releiving or a counsellor for a short time, temporarily, before it becomes an issue or outburst.
The good Samaritan thing in Japan was still true when I was there in 2008. The worry was that if you injured someone while aiding them you were liable, i.e. breaking ribs performing CPR. You also never apologized for something because that meant admitting guilt, and that you were liable for damages.
That...
Explains so many things about seemingly asshole characters in manga...
Not in canada. We have a law that saying sorry is not admitting guilt
Ilena Starbreeze It’s Canada, what do you expect?
You can't eat trix if you are over 12
Trix are for kids!
i cant count
Tricked or treated last year when I was 19. I determined since I can still pass for a 17 year old that I may as well do it.
Cassie Fuchs or you can rent a kid and say you’re their uncle or older cousin. Then split the candy later.
You are still legally a kid until you are 18 in most places.
Reminds me of the Liam Neeson cameo in Ted 2
“Now I understand this Trix cereal box is explicitly for children, is that correct?”
“Uh, yeah?”
“Is that enforced by law?”
So frickin funny
The most interesting one to me going through law school is the idea that ship captains can marry people. You see it in everything from _The African Queen_ to _Star Trek_ but it isn't true. In some jurisdictions, almost anyone has the authority to perform marriages, but ship captains are not among them.
Several jurisdictions do allow captains of vessels registered there to perform marriages, but it is not a general feature of international maritime law
anonygent I was married by a ship captain so you are fucking wrong. It's not legal until you go to the courthouse to get it signed off but you can be married by them.
That WAS the case before WWII, when ships’ captains were also legally magistrates, because voyages even across the English Channel once could take over a day, let alone across the Atlantic. After WWII, the diplomats decided that voyages were too short and/or near land and the automatic magisterial powers were unnecessary.
You are partially correct. Ship captains are not granted any special powers by maritime law, however it is not uncommon for a ship's captain to perform a wedding. Many countries only require that they are registered as a justice of the peace or in some cases, simply a notary public.
@@randyhusband8542 Right, but that's not a power granted to ship captains _as_ ship captains, which is what the movies & TV shows imply.
I’m from Wisconsin and have a friend who still lives there . Wisconsin’s drinking age is 11 but bars and other places that serve drinks have the right to refuse . My friend has seen 3 lawsuits from Karen’s who for some reason want to damage there child’s brain attempting to sue bars who don,t know those laws because it’s a dumb one
"Employers have to have a reason to fire you, you're protected from unfair bosses." That's not true in most of the US. Basically please research labor protections for yourself instead of taking random coworkers' or boss' word for what rights you do and don't have as an employee.
Most employers have you in the contract you sign that they reserve the right to fire you for any reason they want. So even if it was illegal it’s not like it would matter for any part time job.
My soon to be ex-wife told me I can't leave the state while we are getting a divorce. I thought she was nuts(she already was in a behavioral hospital twice in the two months prior so you can judge how wrong it is to call her crazy). It turns out, it could be very illegal to leave the state during a divorce if I brought our child with us(we have no children), so she missed the biggest part of that law. What a loser.
Better yet, she has picked up a boyfriend and plans on sleeping with him, after claiming we are not married anymore(we still are, I signed no paperwork). Divorce is going to be much more satisfying when she has to explain why she committed adultery.
Okay I’m having a mind blank.
#1. What is adultery?
#2. Also I hope your divorce went well, I know it’s been a while
@@rudlodh78 adultery is cheating pretty much
Did this thing just read 'assist' as 'behindist'?
Because 'ass' is a bad word that TH-cam'll demonetize.
I noticed that to. Found it annoying, but also made me chuckle a bit.
@@tallynnyntyg6008 nope, this was a lame attempt at a "joke" by this youtuber. TH-cam doesn't demonetize you for saying assist lmao.
Not quite, jerk: these videos are made by macro-reading with the narrator programmed to speak most instances of “ass” as “behind”. No fucking duh TH-cam won’t demonetize “assist”, you’ll notice that nobody was saying they would: TH-cam will however demonetize “ass” and it’s far too painstaking to comb through the video and make the narrator only censor certain words, so they just do it by macro command, hence the narrator mistaking “assist” as “behindist”.
@@vincentheartland2088 Are you this big of an idiot? First, read the first reply in this thread. Second, "assist" is one word, with no spaces in between. Literally EVERY text-to-speech engine can differentiate between "ass " and "assist." This was intentionally done by whoever made this video.
If the teacher doesn’t show up after 15 minutes we’re allowed to leave
Shit
Shit
If your roommate dies you get an A for the semester. Nope, not gonna happen.
I had a class in college where the teacher was 40 minutes late. Half the class was gone. But the thing was it was a 3 hour class that met once a week. If you bail, you effectively missed a week of classes. Another group tried to leave but was intercepted by the teacher as he came down the hall. The way I figured, I had nothing better to do anyway and if I left, I'd have to do work anyway and it would be on my own time. So I stuck around.
@@tstuff happens sometimes but its not a rule
ah the infamous
"You can't film me" , "you need my permission to film me" , "i will sue you if that gets online" , "you have to pay me if you upload that online"
basically the bs that you cant film or photograph them in public...
, "you have to tell me if you are a cop" .
*edit*
ah and the
"cops can't lie to you they are bound by law to tell the truth" ... i mean with all the footage nowadays you would expect that lie to have been stomped dead
Pretty sure where I live there is a law about that, but it's about uploading to the internet without the permission of the people in the video, not filming them without permission.
Okay so I just went and read the law about it, and it's basically that it's okay as long as there's no bad intent to the photo/video
@@dartonmagnusson5783 It more the no bad intent. If you use for news purposes that protected, but you can use the likeness including an photo of someone for commercial purposes without consent. The main laws about recording in public is doing so secretly' that where you get into one party and two party consent laws
reminds me of a "dumb criminal" story: an undercover cop had a hard time keeping a straight face as the crook he was after spouted out a WHOLE bunch of silly stuff like that, then said "i can smell a cop a mile away" while less than 3 feet from the cop.
a few days later, the cop pulled out his badge, the crook's eyes got really big, then the cop leaned forwards until their noses were ONE inch apart, then he said,
"how do i smell from here?"
They may actually have an argument if you make money off them
the no phone call law is so weird, I know a young adult that was late in town, minding his business, when someone tried to steal his bag, they got into a fight, someone called the police and both ended in the cell overnight.
This can literally happen to anyone, it wasn't even that late at night, and he was not permitted to contact his family or his girlfriend.
Phone calls are a privilege not a right.
It's not so much a law as it is a lack of one, they aren't required to give it, nor are they restricted from not giving it, but in that particular case sounds like a dick move, a lot of it is down to the people involved.
People who say
If you’re a cop you legally have to tell me or I can’t be charged
That... destroys the purpose of going undercover...
"Okay we'll send three undercover cops onto this drug dealer ring. Now let's just hope that they don't ask them if they're cops."
A friend of mine believed this "law" when he was buying weed years ago. He met up with the dealer, and was afraid he smelled a bit rank, so he gave himself a sniff, and the dealer thought he was talking into a wire.
Fortunately, the dealer also believed that that was a law, because a quick response of "I'm not a cop,!" chilled him right out.
No one:
Robot: "Behindist"
'assist'.replace(/ass/i,'behind')
@@want-diversecontent3887 bruh i think it was a joke
15:55 I'm french and I confirm this! It also applies when you don't help someone in danger if you have the PSC1 (Prévention et Secours Civiques niveau 1), which is the Prevention and Civic Assistance level 1 that...idk if it's the case everywhere but I and all my acquaintances were obliged to pass it.
"I have to register my FISTS as lethal weapons"
- middle colored karate belt guy from the 80's
17:22 You are not paying attention, most of the villains on Scooby Doo are trying to scare people away to hide their illegal activity.
WF6I: So are we just gonna give the kids a pass for ignoring LEASH laws? LOL
Imagine spending 5 years in French jail because you saw someone about to get hit by a bus and you scream out the only French words you know.
OMELETTE DU FROMAGE!!
That is ridiculous, everyone knows how to ask for their uncle’s pen, as well :-)
And, “Do you want to copulate (but in earthier language)?”
Well if you actually reacted, even if it was useless, you still tried to help the person. So you can't be sent in jail for that.
Oh, I just love you. You are a good person.
5:30 That would be the best thing ever.
Example of entrapment:
an ATF agent begging Randy Weaver to saw off a shotgun and sell it to him. Then arresting him for sawing off a shotgun and selling it.
12:00 In Canada, A police officer is required to identify themselves if requested, and you have no legal obligation to comply or answer any questions other than identifying yourself unless you are under arrest or investigative detention. A police officer can only place you under arrest if they have reasonable grounds and they must tell you what those reasons are if asked. That being said, the Canadian constitution can literally be thrown in the garbage and you can have all your rights stripped if a court deems it necessary for national security
Edit: There is also a whole different set of scenarios for people who are driving because driving is a privilege only (it is not a right)
That whole thing about hearsay actually helps make me feel more validated about things I've thought, know, or have experienced. Like my voice matters because I can give a testimony and it be considered actual evidence and not just hearsay.
Yep. If you saw it, or heard the defendant say it, it's valid testimony. Hearsay is, Bob told me that Jim robbed the bank (or Bob told me that Jim told him that he robbed the bank). Think of it as "I heard from Bob that Jim said he robbed the bank". If that's the case, then Bob has to testify.
The “Sovereign Citizen” thing comes from the Articles of Confederation, a document that’s been out of use since 1787.
13:18 You can tell the cop you want to verify by calling non-emergency and asking if there's an active traffic stop for your license plate. Officer will have called it into dispatch for multiple reasons, but most of all, their own safety.
This reminds me, I work in customer service by myself at night. A lot of times when someone gets upset with me they demand my manager's home phone number, stating it's the law that I do it. When I finally tell them to leave they threaten to call the police and I'm like, "please do, and we'll talk about how you're trespassing."
The drinking in UK one makes sense now... me and my friend were in a pub in the UK with our moms and she ordered apple cider, thinking that it wasn't alcoholic. It was, and we were so confused.
"PENN VS MIMMS"... AN OFFICER does NOT need a reason to ask you to step out of your VEHICLE.... and Just because you are in your driveaway DOES NOT MEAN you are safe from getting a ticket... lol
You need to re-read the case and the supreme court conclusion. You have misread several aspects of this decision.
When I was a teenager my mom told me the driving while barefoot BS. I was in a horrible situation the summer I turned 18 and lost a shoe at the lake. I was having a panic attack the whole drive home that I was going to get pulled over and be arrested.
So I was this many days old when I found out that it wasn't illegal to drive without shoes. I'm now fifty.
Not illegal but extremely stupid, if barefoot you will either not apply enough pressure to the brakes in an emergency or apply to much and damage your foot possibly irreversibly.
"I had to deal drugs, and I was so good at it that it got me a promotion"
Having spent some years working in retail, I can confidently inform everyone that there is no such law that we must give customers the price on the shelf tag where they supposedly found it sitting. "But I found this flat screen television on a shelf marked $9.99! You have to sell it to me for that by law!" No, we absolutely don't have to.
Just to clarify, a manager can reduce a price at their own discretion if they believe it will be good for customer satisfaction in certain situations, but it is always up to the customer to READ the signs and be sure that the shelf tag price matches the item in question. Same goes for big sale signs; they always have a notation of which items they pertain to. The customer has no "right" to purchase that television for $9.99 simply because they claim they found it near some sign that said $9.99.
I have worked for a few companies that told all new hires, and all employees, that discussing wages is a violation of company policy, which could result in termination. "Right to work," states have different laws and legal definitions than other states. I have never known anyone who has won a wrongful termination lawsuit, because, just was said here, the employer just makes up some bullshit, and can afford more than an out of work person. I went to my wrongful termination hearing, when I was fired due to the employer learning of my diagnosis of a serious illness and they anticipated that I would miss significant work hours due to treatments and surgery, the judge was clearly familiar with the family who owned the company. I found out that day that I was the twelfth person to sue this employer for wrongful termination in the previous 11 months. I also found out, after the ruling went against me, that the judge had gone on hunting vacations to Africa and Asia with the family that owned this company. He didn't recuse himself, as he should have. When I appealed the ruling going against me the hearing was in front of a different judge, and this judge not only had gone on international vacation trips for canned hunting, he also was a fraternity brother if the owner of the company, and groomsmen at each other's weddings. My appeal was over before it began.
It is illegal to fire someone for discussing wages/unionizing. However, randomly firing someone who just HAPPENS to be leading efforts to unionize is legal. So is shutting down an entire store or warehouse, devastating an entire community, when that just happened to be where a lot of people were trying to unionize (as Wal-Mart and Amazon have both done). Just say the individual wasn't "fitting in" or the closure was for "business reasons". And now all other employees are intimidated.
This is keeping me from going insane in quarentine
Mood 😂
^^^
Too late for me already got PPD
Does no one know how to spell quarantine? I swear, every major thing that happens involving some uncommon word eventually leads to people spelling it incorrectly. Google is your friend, people, not Facebook and Twitter lol
@@onefalseball Also the fact that your device will tell you that you spelled it wrong.
An old boss used to be a banker and had a guy come in saying he was a sovereign citizen and he, "has money in the bank. Trust me." There was nothing under the guy's name and when boss man told him several times he couldn't jist give him money the guy looked him in the eye and said, "You have declared war on sovereign citizens." Lol
You keep threatening me with a horse, bring it!!
@22:30 lol! If Danes possessed coherent speech they would be less inclined to beat people with sticks but you are probably right that the wannabe Danes crossing the ice in the winter could do with a few good whacks with a stick.
In Spain it IS illegal to drive barefoot or wearing flip flops... Imagine going to the beach and having to change footware to drive
And in Portugal too
I'm glad they brought up the "barefoot driving law", I've had some friends who ran into a cop who believed this law exists. They were wearing flipflops, and the officer said it was illegal, and made them change their shoes. The crazy part of this story is is that the only other "shoes" my friend had was a set of roller blades. Yes the police officer made him wear roller blades while driving, because he believed driving in flip flops was illegal, and too "dangerous."
My driver's ed teacher told me that it was illegal to drive barefoot.
Same
Mine said it was a bad idea to drive barefoot or in flipflops, but never said it was illegal.
That's a lie
Years ago the Alabama drivers manual specifically said you can drive barefoot to help you stay awake and alert while driving.
That one I've heard. I never got why people would do it. It's so uncomfortable and screws up my coordination
5:00 its just common courtesy to blur faces for their own privacy but its not illegal to not blur
9:34 I've just been given a very evil thought. Thank you.
11:49 Regarding "deepfakes" ... A dear late colleague who was an honest-to-god private detective before he retired and joined my writers group, said that with digital manipulation, it may well come to pass that analog recording will return, just because it's so much harder to fake and edit. (Analog recording, akin to VHS or audio-tape recording, or LP records, etc., recording that actually logs the light and/or sound waves as a variable physical impulse, instead of a digitized discrete value.)
Joseph Erhardt are you gay?
@@RainbowQuartz2.0 No; how did that get into the mix? Robert E. Bailey & his wife were both members of my writers group, and his wife (now widow) still is. She and I finished and edited Bob's final work, _Deja Noir_ (it's on Amazon, by Ignition Books).
Joseph Erhardt when you said you got an evil though at the 9:34 part. And around that time they were talking about men. I thought the evil thought was like a sexual joke or something.
@@RainbowQuartz2.0 Maybe I got the timestamp wrong? It was about having a fake heir show up at the reading of your will. Let me check ... Yeah, that looks right. And that would be a hilarious last practical joke. And if, e.g., a surviving spouse were to approach the woman in the veil, one of the heavies would step in the way and utter something like, "One does NOT approach the Kommisar!" (In a Russian accent, of course.)
But that's so ridiculously wrong. Analog streams are trivially easy to fake: you just fabricate a digital stream, add noise to it to make it harder to detect as digital in origin, and then film it or pass it through a digital to analog converter.
There are ways to detect deepfakes, most aren't terribly good at forging even minimally sudden motion outside the face region. There's a way to validate real-time video streams, something to do with intermittent directional flashes of infrared light, which would be impossible to emulate faithfully in a timely fashion. Of course this only validates streams as they happen, not recordings, but it's a start.
Less technology can only be equal to or worse than more technology; it can never be better.
Hearsay is a big one. People think it means an accusation without any evidence.
My step sister ran away from the mental institution and we got her reportedly immediately. Took 4 days to find her. One of the scariest experiences of my life.
Note: in your rights they say “anything you say can and will be used against you” department’s put under cover officers if a subject is not willing to spill. Watch what you say or you may pick up another charge. Wait for your lawyer and give the detective and DA or ADA everything pertaining to the crime. And ask for leniency. Oh and don’t make stuff up to get you out or to get others arrested on trumped up charges.
2:37
Imagine the guy who offers you cocaine is an undercover cop, so they end up arresting each other, because the buyer is buying the cocaine, and the seller is selling it
It has actually happened on more than one occasion.
If your boss threatens to fire you for talking about your pay then talk about it on purpose in front of them. They fire you, you take it to court, and you retire
South Carolina actually doesn't have work unions, it's a right to work state so unions are actually banned here 🤣
Not true. A right to work state just bans union security agreements, which require people who are not union members to contribute to the union for collective bargaining. It is illegal at the federal level to fire employees for joining a union(tho it can happen anyways if the employer can make up a different reason to fire them).
We definitely have unions, Parelli cable had to fight one and destroyed it when they struck a while back. Mack truck built a plant somewhere and said, if they tried to unionize they'd leave. Two years later when they tried to unionize Mack shut the plant down and packed up.
On the good samaritan thing, I was always told that it just meant that, assuming you were qualified to help in a certain way you couldn't get in trouble if that went wrong. Like if you are cpr certified you couldn't get in trouble for bruised ribs caused by performing cpr. The thing that drives me crazy is stories of people saving someone's life and getting sued for it. I'm not claiming they're not true, but the versions of the good Samaritan laws that I've read all specifically protect people against this but never seem to hold up in court somehow.
True to a certain extent in U.S. Off duty off medical premises, you do the best you can with the equipment you happen to have. If at work you can't step onto the sidewalk to help someone in because you are on duty and that is public property. EMS has to bring them in.
Oh, the belief that the First Amendment guarantees you absolute freedom to say anything, under any circumstances. There are actually quite a few exceptions to protect the public good - libel, slander, hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, incitement, and probably a few I'm not thinking of.
reminds me of those crazy self-appointed "first amendment auditors" who SWEAR AT POLICEMEN...
Yes! Free speech only means you can say what you want- does not mean it's free from all consequences
Actually, "hate speech" IS protected under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of individuals burning the flag, wearing "Fuck the draft" on a jacket, and displaying the swastika. Local municipalities have tried to ban "hate speech" on several occasions, and all of those ordinances have been struck down.
Perjury (lying in court) is legal if you're a cop. No, it's not _written_ anywhere, but it's definitely a "de facto" law, given how even proving their testimony false doesn't ever have any effect on the case.
17:47 If they wanted you to go 10 over, they would just put "50" instead of "60".
They actually want you going 65-70
There’s the classic “It’s illegal to remove the tag on your mattress!”
Nope. Unless you’re a business selling the mattress you can do whatever you want with that tag.
As a New Yorker, I have never had a police officer ID themselves to me, even in the one case where I specifically asked them to do so. Police do not follow laws, only enforce laws when absolutely required to do so or when it will help them meet a quota, and have no interest in pretending like they care.
the ID thing for police officers is ruled on the state level, so maybe they don't have to do that in New York?
that is because making a law is only a third of the process.
next you have to:
-enforce it sucessfully
-prosecute and convict under it sucessfully
or else it becomes utterly meaningless.
This applies for out of date laws that go unenforced and forgotten to save on the time to repeal them, and for shortsighted new laws, and for valid laws that are actively ignored by either the police or the state. (cops dont arrest for it or the state chooses not to press charges)
Good Samaritan laws protect you when you break someone's ribs while doing CPR. They can't start a lawsuit over broken ribs when that very action has prevented them from being dead. You can't sue someone for breaking your car window to save your abandoned baby in summer.
Yeah the example in the video was total dogshit, like yeah that's *obviously* not an applicable case.
18:15
On the interstate near me you can get ticketed for going the speed limit or below it because you’re holding up traffic. Everyone goes 10-20 over
Bullshit, it's not illegal to go the speed limit. To be charged with impeding the flow of traffic you would need to be going far below the limit.
Most of the scooby doo villains aren't JUST trying to scare someone off their own property. There's something else going on, that makes things go nuts. (Such as, scaring someone off a 'abandoned' area, that they're actually trying to develop). Or scaring someone out of a house that they don't own, in an attempt to fraduluntely get a treasure...
Or scare someone into signing a contract.
Or scare someone into leaving...because they're a convicted felon!
*YES*
21:54 I remember having to get cpr certified when I worked as a camp director at a summer camp. The instructors told us and showed us videos during our training that you have to ask people if they are choking and get their permission before giving them the heimlich and same with getting permission to preform cpr. If you dont get their permission and preform cpr or the heimlich on someone, they can sue you.
What they DIDN'T tell us is that because of the Good Samaritan law most people who DO get sued for preforming cpr or the heimlich don't get successfully sued BECAUSE of that law.
Not gonna lie, watching this really made me appreciate german law.
Achtung mien commander
Yeah, until you read that stupid Reinheitsgebot. They even celebrate their dumb beer laws. I mean, sure, nobody's dying of weird poisoning now, but lead is lead and orange peel is orange peel.
In regards to the good Samaritan laws I took a CPR class in NW Indiana and because of how close we are to Illinois we have to be aware of the laws for both states.
When going over the EpiPen the instructor made a big point to tell us that of we are administering an EpiPen in Illinois to hold the hand of the person who we had to administer to and make them "hold" the pen cause the good Samaritan law in Illinois didn't cover us administering the EpiPen and so technically they could sue us if there was some complication with it even though a judge would most likely throw the case out anwyas but to just do it to avoid the headache so that "they adminstered" their own EpiPen.
Honestly a lot of these should be common sense. Of course police don't have to tell you they are police. What do people think the point of undercover police is?
3:18 in my state, it is the opposite of the common misconception (and in the entire USA but especially my state). In my state it is illegal to STIP any worker from discussing their wages in any manner. If you ran aroundyour office saying your wage to everyone and comparing wages, there's nothing that anyone could do to stop you as long as you're still getting your work done and following other company policies.
"behindist"? Seems you've run into the Scunthorpe Problem.
on discussing wages: when I worked for a very large company, I mean literally one of the biggest in one of the largest industries, so they should have damn well known better...
The employee handbook stated it was grounds for termination to discuss wages, and I went to HR and pointed out that it's illegal to prohibit employees from discussing wages, and convinced them to change it to "It is recommended to not discuss wages with other employees as there may be circumstances such as experience, performance, and seniority which can create disparities in wages paid, and these disparities may cause resentment and create a hostile work environment", so if you work for a company with that bit in your employee handbook, that's my fault 😂
My company also has something almost the exact same. HRs response was, 'It's still a violation of our policy and we'll still fire you. Don't like it? Have fun trying to beat our lawyers in court."
You know your early when the most recent comment is from 6 seconds ago.
Before I joined my current job, a girl told me about how the PREVIOUS boss told her that it was against policy to discuss your wages with fellow employees, and me being an armchair lawyer, I had to explain to her while on the clock in front of a store manager that "Not only are you allowed to discuss your wages with your co-workers, it is against the law for them to let you loose because of it."
All I got was a "Oh, i didn't know that"
"Yeah, they're banking on that."
You might be amazed what obscure subsections of company policy you are suddenly somehow violating in a manner likely to get you fired for TOTALLY UNRELATED REASONS, though
They should re-title this video:
"Examples of Living in a Police State."
Exactly lawyers' first duty is to the court not the client there's a law nobody knows.
LISTEN OUT FOR THAT BUS!!!!!
Somebody told me it’s illegal to fart in public
What
Disturbing the peace or endangering public safety! lol
I just broke the law lmao
“Can the restaurant decide if they’re gonna serve the alcohol?” Reminded me of when America changed the smoking age to 21 and my gas station did it early and someone tried to tell us federal law says they can still buy it. Anywhere that serves age restricted items can by federal law refuse the sale to any one for any reason. Just so everyone know.
Indeed they can. My parents owned a bar. They had no problem refusing to serve individuals and even kicking them out if needed. The most common reasons for that were either doing drugs or fighting (they had a zero tolerance policy for fighting to where if a customer did feel like fighting, they would go to another bar to do so and then come back)
And of course the general rule of if the customer is being a piece of shit, they aren't going to be served..
15:30 illegal in Germany and I think most other European nations. The french guy explained it well. Also when a crime is happening, you have to step in, if it's dangerous, call for help or the police.
Yeah it's the same in the UK. Especially if you have done any kind of First Aid course you then have a legal requirement to administrr First Aid to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
@@cookeymonster83 Even if it was wildly out of date? I took a course in the mid 1980s, and there is no way that I am up to date on what NOT to do, if I don’t want to blow out a kid’s lungs or something.
Fun fact its not illegal to discuss your wages but in the 30 some odd states that are classified as right to work states it is proper means for immediate termination if your employer expresses the fact that you are not allowed to do so and you willingly discus it anyways you can be fired and will loose any wrongful termination case and unemployment benefits and can even be marked for a bad reference at your next interview to silence the people complaining about unfair wages and neutralize the thought of bringing in workers unions and costing the employer more money and protecting your benefits ect if the company decides to screw you and then use its vast wealth to bankrupt you in court just so it doesnt have to pay you and set an example to others who may think of trying to do the same if they screw them
6:10 barefoot is fine it's usually heels that can get you in trouble legally. Also 40 states plus DC give protection if you are doing drugs and see someone od. How much depends state to state
I live in NC & the police officer that came to my driver's ed classroom emphasized a law like that, but if I recall correctly(it's been about 3 years), it only applied to alcohol & reasonably believing you're the 1st to call 911(the law was the result of lobbying from people whose children had died from alcohol poisoning because the other people at the parties didn't call for help).
@@galaxyanimal nys you're protected but I dunno if the guy who oded is I think some are scared their friend ends up in jail
I was told that driving in flipflops is illegal very recently. I was shocked but never thought to check. Thankyou for the correction! Very good to know for the summer!
"You can go 10 over the speed limit." sounds like someone mishearing "you can go 10% over the speed limit." That's the rule as I know it.
Well, in the US there are a lot more manual speed controls than in the EU, so if you get checked by a policeman who's in a bad mood, they can even give you a ticket for 1 or 2 over the limit.
About the Paparazzi part, though: Keep in mind that this video is heavily leaning towards how things are in the U.S. Because in the EU this "fact" IS actually wrong. Here in the EU you have the right for privacy even in Public. You can NOT just be videotaped or photographed in Public in the EU. The only exceptions are if
a) the photo/video, with you on/in it, is of great historical importance or public interest
b) if you as a person are of public interest yourself (which is why celebrities and politicians can often -not always- be videotaped/photographed here, too)
c) if you are not the center of the video/photo but merely a part of a larger crowd or the likes, that happened to have been filmed/photographed.
"I can shoot you on my property if I feel threatened. Stand your ground. DERRRRRRRRR!!!"
"It's a free country" means you don't have to wear a face mask in COSTCO during a pandemic.
Does that mean in "a free country" the hospital doesn't have to put your virus-ridden lungs on a ventilator for not wearing a mask in COSTCO during a pandemic? I think that's a nice give and take balancing of what freedom should be, amirite?
@@shadowmatrix0101
... and deny the hospital those sweet, sweet federal dollars for uncovering another covid infection? Such healthcare-phobia is so not-woke of you. You should lose your job -- and the ability to earn a living -- for being so intolerant.
Nice try with the strawman fallacy.
That's not how freedom works.
If wearing a mask helps to prevent infection, then why is the country not completely open for commerce?
Conversely, if wearing a mask does NOT help to prevent infection, then why are we wearing them?
That is definitely not how personal rights work in this country. There's stuff you're generally allowed to do but that aren't considered a big enough deal if the state wants to regulate it in some way, and then there's _fundamental_ rights, which are recognized as being inextricable linked with the whole "life, liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness" thing that the government generally *can't* interfere with. Except, even if a fundamental right is impacted by some governmental stricture, the stricture may still be upheld if it is determined to be justified by a compelling state interest, and is both narrowly tailored to and the least restrictive method of enforcing that interest. So even if "not wearing a mask" were deemed a fundamental right (which is highly unlikely), there's a very good chance the courts would still uphold the constitutionality of mask ordinances.
Costco being a private business can require you to wear anything they say.
Studied a little bit of law in high school and a person who thinks they are being fallowed by an unmarked car can call 911 to get it identified as law enforcement or not.
Ok am i the only one thinking we should have a KNOW UR RIGHTS class at school? Like obligatory class and we'd a least learn the basics and made-up laws...
They used to have one that was called American History. When I was a freshman in high school, American History was a required course, and we spent an entire month on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
@@avshockey6633 True, but too many schools today don't want students to know their rights. Guess why.
in at will states, you really can't risk 'knowing your rights' when it comes to employment. they don't have to have a reason to fire you, so you can't take them to court over wrongful termination in most cases. you just go with it.