A crime was committed on the night of May 10th by Michael Yacchi of invasion, attempted robbery, assault, and attempted assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of battery. Yet, to attempt to right a wrong, Norfolk Commonwealth attorney Philip Evans is seeking conviction on me the victim instead of justice. Why should I continue to be penalized for a necessary display of self-defense against these crimes from a drunken and disturbed individual who caused his own injuries? Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Bryant said in a recent article in WordPress, “We do consider in our society that your home is your castle," Harvey said. "If somebody has broken through the castle walls and come in aggressively, you’re entitled to defend
Paladin Press in responsible for the death of these people and the first amendment should not protect those who are advocating murder. A precedent court case was Schenck v. United States. Charles Schenck was convicted for giving out pamphlets to draftees saying how they should avoid the draft. He was convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck said he was protected under first amendment rights.
Electronic Surveillance of Employees Professor Eric Baime, JD MBA Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance October 24, 2010 Abstract Employees should expect privacy to complete personal needs. Employers are within their rights to use electronic surveillance to insure a safe and honest working environment. This paper will discuss whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or in an enclosed office. Also, the report will determine the employer’s need to know whether or not an employee is being honest is a sufficient grounds for utilizing an electronic surveillance system. The extent to what an employer can engage in electronic surveillance of employees will be examined.
After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
Janet can prove that the third-party interferer acted intentionally, by their actions and the contractual breach (which they were aware of). Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. Walter detained Steve for over 6 hours against his will. This action makes Walter in violation of the false imprisonment of Steve. BUGusa, Inc. does
Alfonzo then appealed arrest and said this law is unconstitutional Lopez believed that the laws went past the power of the United States Congress. His first defense failed and the court ruled and said that Congress had the right and authority to regulate school activities throughout the United States. Alfonzo was convicted for carrying a weapon to school. Then Alfonzo appealed the initial decision and then he brought the case to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals which is a court composed of seventeen active judges John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeal which is located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States.
His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional. Since Wynehamer had legally purchased his liquors before the enactment of the statute, he was being denied his right to dispose of his property as he saw fit. The court disagreed and found the Wynehamer guilty. Wynehamer appealed the judgment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was then sent to be reviewed by the court of
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.
This research examines the different avenues employers take to “spy” that employees may not even know about. This examination of employee rights will show how far an employer can go without violating any laws. The thought of knowing emails being sent out, phone conversations taking place, keystroke monitoring, or even social media tracking can all be done at a reasonable level without invading employee privacy. So it is reasonable to say an employee should expect privacy in the workplace- why or why not? Is Employee Privacy a Reasonable Right to Have?
Factual causation is established by applying the ‘but for’ test. The test ask the question ‘but for the actions of the defendant, would the victim have been harmed?’ This was seen in the case of R v Pagett 1983 where the defendant held his pregnant girlfriend captive. When confronted by police, the defendant used the victim as a shield and fired shots at the police who returned fire, killing the victim. He was acquitted of murder but was found guilty of manslaughter, amongst other offences. The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her.