2. Counterclaim I Will Refute: Public Service Announcements will not help reduce distracted driving incidents due to the fact that many people may be in denial that it would happen to them or they may want to hear it from the state or government to be sure that it will really cause an incident to occur. PART TWO. Primary Sources | Secondary Sources | 1. PewResearchCenter,2009“Teens and Distracted Driving” (Madden, Lenhart)http://www.thorndikepresslargeprint.com/pdf/samples/SP_9780737755664.pdf | 1.
It is undisputed that the automobile is stolen and title is void. Appellants couldn’t legally transfer title and therefore the subsequent sale is a breach of warranty of good title. The owner did not assent to the transfer of the automobile and therefore the appellants had no title. RULES OF LAW: A person who has goods of another cannot pass title whether such other knew or did not know that goods were stolen. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good to a good faith purchaser for value.
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
Next, the car did not match Carter’s car, his car was very similar but had many different features, which the cops didn’t check out. There were also no fingerprints taken on the car, showing that the police just wanted him put away, not showing interest. Lastly, police cops were caught manipulating and distorting evidence, changing it to their liking making it all point to Carter. Examples include recordings weren’t continuously recorded and stopped several times for unknown reasons and an eyewitness’s signature wasn’t approved by her and was approved by an unknown suspect. This newly discovered evidence shows that manipulation and distortion of the old evidence occurred to frame Carter.
In the civilian world it would be tantamount to a state law forbidding store and bar owners to check ID before selling liquor to younger customers. Such a law would force the proprietor of a bar to assume the risk that if an underage customer drives and accidentally kills someone on the way home, the proprietor will be held liable. That risk is reduced by the posting and enforcement of signs stating “We Check ID.” Properly enforced liquor control laws protect the public interest even if some 18-year-olds successfully conceal or lie about their age and some adults do not ask for proof. It would not be accurate to claim, however, that the age of customers is “personal and private,” and state law allows 18-year-olds to drink alcohol as long as they do not say they are underage. This is, however, how the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy worked.
Kristen Rand, the Director of the Violence Policy Center, argues “[c]oncealed carry permit holders don't prevent mass shootings, they perpetrate them” (Carmi Times, 2011). The problem with this statement isn’t that it is incorrect, but rather it’s completely irrelevant. Of course, when murders are committed with handguns, a certain percentage of offenders are individuals who hold concealed-carry permits. This, however, is not an appropriate indictment of concealed carry laws. Using this logic, citizens would be denied the ability to drive cars because drunk drivers use them to kill people.
A major issue facing the juvenile justice system is how young offenders are treated and held, before the trial process. Laws dictating rights of adult suspects are not necessarily applied to juveniles, and this is due to an unresolved and halfway approach to juvenile crime.Juveniles are not considered responsible adult, it is often the case that parents are to be turned to when arrests take place. Legally, a parent or guardian must be contacted upon the holding of a suspected juvenile. This is a mode of thinking perhaps admirable, but hopelessly antiquated and unrealistic, since many adolescent offenders do not come from traditional backgrounds, or even have a parent in place as guardian. What actually happens in most cases of juvenile arrest
Sadly , more so than not, the core of the family nuclear unit can be tainted. If a child is exposed to this type of dysfunction, they have no other family foundation to model his or her life’s choices and decisions against. When the rode less traveled by is chosen then the child/juvenile meets up with law enforcement within that path. The police come in contact with these children on a number of levels. Generally, the police do not follow the protocol of the juvenile justice system unless it becomes necessary to actually process a juvenile.
Parents that are ignorant to positive parenting methods resort to violent punishment including physical abuse, humiliation and constant criticism that cause irreparable damage to the future adults of society. The result of incompetent parenting is usually an individual incapable of abiding by societies norms being unleashed on the public. It is the opinion of others that improving the way people parent is unlikely. “Can we influence a behavior that is rooted in upbringing and culture, affected by stress, and occurs mainly in private?” Bornstein goes on to dispute this claim by introducing a parenting system called the Triple P- Positive Parenting Program, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, developed at the University of Queensland, Australia. “Triple P is one of several evidence-based parenting programs that have demonstrated how society can reduce behaviors that put children at risk” (Bornstein).
Holding: No. The automobile is not considered a necessity to the minor. Therefore the appellee does not have an enforceable contract with the appellant, a minor. Reasoning: As it has been stated in 27 Am.Jur., Infants, ｧ 17, pp. 760, 761, "[w]hat are or what are not necessaries for an infant depends on what is reasonably necessary for the proper and suitable maintenance of the infant in view of his social position and and situtation in life .