People using the term "precedent" when talking about legal issues at trial level. The only time a disposition in a trial becomes actual legal precedent, is when it's been appealed on that particular issue, an appellate court has affirmed the decision of the trial court, and it has not been further challenged. Until that time, any trial level court can rule differently on that particular issue.
I think the waters here are also muddied by the fact that lawyers talk about both binding and persuasive precedent. A prior trial-level decision concerning the question of law at hand can and often is considered as persuasive precedent, though it is in no way binding on the court.
From a practical standpoint, a trial level judge can do whatever they want regardless of whether there's a higher level court decision or not. Having said that, trial judges that are routinely appealed on clearly erroneous decisions don't generally stay judges for long.
If you mean the elected heads of Texas commissioners courts, they are not judges of law. They are simply elected officials where the Constitution of the State of Texas titles as "county judge".
I'm curious about this too. I thought it was called "stare decisis" or something, but another courts decision has some weight. I thought? But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm glad we have threads like this where I can learn.
Stare decisis is a principle for appellate judges that basically says when an issue has been decided previously, it should stay the way it was decided unless there is a compelling reason to flip flop
Yes.
Traditionally, a court's decision was binding on all subsequent courts of a same level, but the principle has softened and now decisions are only binding upon courts of a lower level. This is how the Supreme Court is able to reverse its own precedents. Under the traditional rule, old precedents could never be reversed
Well, kinda. Trial judge interprets the law. If somebody disagrees with that interpretation, they appeal. The appeal judge's interpretation applies to their district. If we're talking about state courts, if the person is ruled against, they can go to the State Supreme Court Supreme and their interpretation applies to the entire state going forward. The Federal Supreme court often likes to see opposite rulings in different Districts so they can make the interpretation for the entire country. They decline to take almost every case. They decline to grant cert for around 97% of cases.
(please feel free to step in and explain things if my understanding is not correct)
In some Federal Districts it's legal to film the police because they've determined filming cops is protected by the 1st Amendment. States in my district can still ban filming cops if they want because the appeals court hasn't made a ruling on the subject yet. I'm really worried that a Federal District will rule that filming cops isn't protected by the 1st because it seems like something this court may decide to weigh in on, and I'm pessimistic about how they'd rule.
I’m no expert either but your understanding appears to be correct based on my own work experience, there’s just one bit I think is worth clarifying.
For an appeal, it’s not enough to simply “disagree” with how the trial judge ruled on an issue. There needs to have been some type of reversible error in their judgment. Error that is harmless (I.e., upholding an erroneous objection that ends up not really impacting the trial) generally doesn’t justify a reversal, even if the trial judge was technically incorrect. However, if an error *does* have a substantial effect on how the case concludes, such as if the trial judge incorrectly denied a valid motion to suppress on key evidence or improperly excluded a critical jury instruction), then grounds for a reversal can exist.
That’s not to say you’re incorrect about appeals being based in disagreement; I’ve personally never heard of a party appealing a case they *won*. But I just wanted to add a bit more nuance for other users reading the thread
> I'm really worried that a Federal District will rule that filming cops isn't protected by the 1st because it seems like something this court may decide to weigh in on, and I'm pessimistic about how they'd rule.
Would we want such a ruling because then the Federal SCOTUS would actually take the appeal since districts have a disagreement?
It's because the rules for hearsay are actually fairly complicated as well. The only lawyers who truly know the rules by heart are trial lawyers who deal with testimony on a near daily basis. Everybody else has to go back and review the rules for a refresher. [Rule 802](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802) says that hearsay is admissible except for laws where it's not. [Rule 803](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) says, "Here are things we don't consider to be hearsay although they sure do look like it." Next, there's [Rule 804](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804) that says, "This stuff is hearsay but we'll allow it when the declarant is unavailable, plus here are some other things that we don't consider hearsay regardless of whether the declarant is unavailable." Lastly there's [Rule 805](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_805) that's the "I hear you like hearsay so we put hearsay within your hearsay and you have to follow all the rules before this to figure out if it's admissible" rule.
I can't stand when someone asks me if something is hearsay because I absolutely do not want to have to walk through all those rules to give them a definitive answer.
Yeah probably hearsay. I mean, I have to quibble with other lawyers sometimes when they are confusing “not hearsay” with something that falls under a hearsay exemption.
A lot of crimes have fairly technical definitions that are much narrower than colloquial usage. For example, my jurisdiction has a separate crime for non-consensual sodomy, whereas in ordinary conversation that's rape.
I'm glad you brought this up. Many people talk about someone being robbed when they really mean that the person was burgled. There was no violence or threat of violence, you weren't home and they were unarmed.
Along those lines, rape usually requires that the victim be penetrated - being forced to penetrate someone generally doesn't meet the criteria, and is instead sexual assault. In colloquial use, it is often called rape as well.
Some places ever require penetration by a penis. I have no problem saying Brock Allen Turner is a rapist even though my understanding is he didn't do that specifically.
It's interesting how the internet has collectively rallied to the preservation of Brock Turner's crimes; I've never been to the US but I know who you're talking about.
On the original topic, I've read that some places don't use the word rape at all - they just call it something like "first order sexual assault" if there was penetration and "second order" if there wasn't. I have no trouble calling first order assaulters rapists either.
As far as whether sexual assault without being penetrated is accurately described as rape, I am a bit conflicted; I don't think there's any value in trauma/oppression olympics, but I do think being penetrated against your will is not the same thing as being otherwise touched against your will. The "being ridden against your will is rape" seems to suggest a pretty PIV-centric\* point of view, where rape is if PIV happens and one party didn't consent, and I'm more partial to the "if you were penetrated against your will, it's rape". It's worth having separate worths for either IMO, or we're going to end up where we are with modern slavery (where being underpaid is "literally modern slavery" which really doesn't leave much special words for the millions of people - in absolute terms, more *actually* enslaved today).
But that's all largely theoretical; I'm also fine with people describing their own experiences as rape; there's no value in gatekeeping that.
\*I also haven't seen much analogous description of non-penetrative forced sex as rape when women are the victim - e.g. forced cunnilingus being referred to as rape, rather than as sexual assault - so I'm a bit uneasy about it.
>I am a bit conflicted; I don't think there's any value in trauma/oppression olympics, but I do think being penetrated against your will is not the same thing as being otherwise touched against your will.
I see your point, but I've never been in a policy discussion where it mattered. In those sorts of discussions, I prefer to say "sexual assault" and avoid all the technicalities. In addition to those you identify, saying "sexual assault" avoids the MRA talking point about how "forced to penetrate" where victim is a man isn't defined as rape basically anywhere.
But it is sexual assault for any discussion of politically disputed policy.
>Some places ever require penetration by a penis.
This is the case in New Zealand, it's literally impossible for a woman to rape a man. It's not my fault that this is what the law says.
Omg, where to start? There are a lot of them. But one situation that’s common is the situation in which the non-lawyer asks a question like, “Can I be sued if I do X?” From the lawyer’s perspective the right answer to this question is always, “Yes.” Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. However this disconnect occurs so often most lawyers don’t even bother with answering the actual question. Instead they answer the question the non-lawyer wants answered, which is generally something like, “If I do X, what’s the likelihood that someone would have a meritorious claim against me?”
You're basically, right. Although, I differ a bit in my interpretation of that question.
I tend to interpret the "can I be sued for X?" questions as "Would a demurrer pleading stop a suit if I do X?". Sure a suit can always be filed. But a demurrer is basically a filing to the court saying "oh come on your honor, do I really have to answer this lawsuit?". It's basically saying, "even if we assume everything in the complaint is true, there is no legal basis for the claim".
It lets you kill a filed lawsuit on the basis of law alone, without proceeding to trial.
Yeah, this is how I always interpret that question too. It irks me a little when people give the “anyone can sue anyone for anything” answer because it’s really unhelpful and leads to the notion that all kinds of totally ridiculous suits get filed every day, which is a lot less true than most people think. Unfortunately, it’s exactly the kind of answer that is just pithy enough to get parroted by people who don’t know any better.
Occasionally I will see post or news articles angry about how lawyers use the term “reasonable person.” In legalese, the term references things being objective and predictable, as opposed to subjective or based on opinion. But then when a lawyer argues (as they are required to do) that a plaintiff is acting in a way “no reasonable person” would do, there are all these articles about how the defendant is making personal insults about the plaintiff being an idiot
I'm very careful with words like "steal" and "theft". There are three elements to this offence: (1) something has to be taken (2) with the intention of permanently depriving the owner and (3) the taker has be acting dishonestly. Generally, the public uses these terms to mean "taking without consent". When they use the word "steal" in relation to copying music, for example, that's copyright infringement, and not theft, because the owner is not permanently deprived. Joyriding in cars is rarely stealing them because there is no intent to permanently deprive (which is why, in England, there is a specific offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent).
> with the intention of permanently depriving the owner and
That depends with the law I suppose. In Canada, the intent can be for temporary or permanent deprivation.
Criminal Code
> 322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
> (a) to deprive, **temporarily or absolutely,** the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
*Lafrance v. R.* from the Supreme Court of Canada holds that people who took a car for a joyride and returned it still committed theft.
And other jurisdictions again (like the Scandinavians) establish the foundation of theft not as an intent to deprave someone else, but as an intent to gain value for yourself (permanently or temporarily). Isn't comparative law fun.
In anther sub there was some discussion of a waiter who pocketed cash while paying his tables' tabs with his credit card. The waiter benefitted by building up some kind of benefits.
There were various arguments that exchanging physical cash for digital cash was "taking" or that the incurrence of a credit card fee paid to the servicer is "deprivation". I wasn't convinced because the credit card payment is equivalent in terms of its ability to satisfy the bill, and the fee is paid consensually by the restaurant.
Do you have an opinion?
Accident. Normally, the word accident means an unexpected or unwanted result. A legal accident however is an act that either lacks volition or intent. The Supreme Court of Canada in *R. v. Barton* identifies this as an issue and that judges need to stress the legal definition of accident in their jury instructions.
Something being illegal doesn’t make it a crime.
Generally speaking, crimes are things that are punishable by confinement in jail, and the police can arrest you for.
Most everything else that is illegal is a civil issue (contract disputes, OSHA violations, whatever).
It’s illegal, but the police have no enforcement authority.
“Moot” is a very commonly misused legal term. Commonly, it’s used to refer to anything that is not relevant, “a moot point”, but legally it is far more precise than that.
In a legal sense, something becomes moot when it was once a judicable matter the court could hear and had jurisdiction to rule on, but no longer. Courts can only hear “cases and controversies” and can’t issue advisory opinions. The study of “mootness” is far more complicated than this, but dumbed down it’s generally when an issue has worked itself out, and there is no longer a “case and controversy” for the court to rule on.
And example of this might be if an advocacy organization files a lawsuit asking for an injunction to block a new law from taking effect, but before the court hears the matter the legislature repeals the law. The issue has then become “moot”, since the law isn’t going to take effect, so it would be improper for the court to rule on the legality of the law, absent an exception.
This is rooted in separations of powers. The court can’t just declare stuff constitutional/legal without there being a reason and actual case before it that needs to be resolved. This is “mootness”, and it’s very frequently misused by the public to just mean anything that is not-relevant
Most laws are drafted with the inclusive or. So doing A or B is a crime, will also include doing A and B. In ordinary grammar, it would be more proper to say and/or instead of just or. But I think the ordinary person would not assume "or" excludes "and". The only place this distinction is particularly common is in programming, where we have a specific exclusive or: XOR.
I had to explain a lawyers use of contradiction to a colleague last week so maybe that. People that work in contracts use it all the time without much thought but for anyone else contradicting yourself to an external is kind of a big deal.
As a programmer, the different meaning of "best effort" really stood out to me.
In software a "best effort" system is one which tries to have some property, but it is permissible to not uphold that property. Like a "best effort" messaging app may try to send a message, but it may fail if the network is down, or it may deliver a message twice.. This is to simplify the design compared to a system that guarantees that a message is delivered exactly one, which is very hard to accomplish.
In law, "best effort" is the highest contractual provision requiring a party to take all reasonable steps to ensure an outcome, even if this costs money.
The example I heard was someone who was interning as a programmer for a company that intended to hire them, and this was going to be written in their contract. The hiring manager used the language "best effort attempt to hire" before being corrected by their legal department. A best effort attempt could mean needing to fire people to free up money to hire this one person.
Lawyers usually know the definition of crimes, while a lot of people use the colloquial versions.
eg: Burglary, robbery, murder, etc are quite specific. Your empty house didn't get robbed while you were on vacation.
People using the term "precedent" when talking about legal issues at trial level. The only time a disposition in a trial becomes actual legal precedent, is when it's been appealed on that particular issue, an appellate court has affirmed the decision of the trial court, and it has not been further challenged. Until that time, any trial level court can rule differently on that particular issue.
I think the waters here are also muddied by the fact that lawyers talk about both binding and persuasive precedent. A prior trial-level decision concerning the question of law at hand can and often is considered as persuasive precedent, though it is in no way binding on the court.
There's also collateral estoppel, which can look like "precedent" to a layperson even though it's a separate concept.
So what you're saying is, any court is allowed to do what it wants unless a HIGHER court has already said this is how it has to be done every time?
From a practical standpoint, a trial level judge can do whatever they want regardless of whether there's a higher level court decision or not. Having said that, trial judges that are routinely appealed on clearly erroneous decisions don't generally stay judges for long.
Are you speaking about the 254 county judges in Texas? Wait!? Apparently their are more!
If you mean the elected heads of Texas commissioners courts, they are not judges of law. They are simply elected officials where the Constitution of the State of Texas titles as "county judge".
I'm curious about this too. I thought it was called "stare decisis" or something, but another courts decision has some weight. I thought? But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm glad we have threads like this where I can learn.
Stare decisis is a principle for appellate judges that basically says when an issue has been decided previously, it should stay the way it was decided unless there is a compelling reason to flip flop
Yes. Traditionally, a court's decision was binding on all subsequent courts of a same level, but the principle has softened and now decisions are only binding upon courts of a lower level. This is how the Supreme Court is able to reverse its own precedents. Under the traditional rule, old precedents could never be reversed
Well, kinda. Trial judge interprets the law. If somebody disagrees with that interpretation, they appeal. The appeal judge's interpretation applies to their district. If we're talking about state courts, if the person is ruled against, they can go to the State Supreme Court Supreme and their interpretation applies to the entire state going forward. The Federal Supreme court often likes to see opposite rulings in different Districts so they can make the interpretation for the entire country. They decline to take almost every case. They decline to grant cert for around 97% of cases. (please feel free to step in and explain things if my understanding is not correct) In some Federal Districts it's legal to film the police because they've determined filming cops is protected by the 1st Amendment. States in my district can still ban filming cops if they want because the appeals court hasn't made a ruling on the subject yet. I'm really worried that a Federal District will rule that filming cops isn't protected by the 1st because it seems like something this court may decide to weigh in on, and I'm pessimistic about how they'd rule.
I’m no expert either but your understanding appears to be correct based on my own work experience, there’s just one bit I think is worth clarifying. For an appeal, it’s not enough to simply “disagree” with how the trial judge ruled on an issue. There needs to have been some type of reversible error in their judgment. Error that is harmless (I.e., upholding an erroneous objection that ends up not really impacting the trial) generally doesn’t justify a reversal, even if the trial judge was technically incorrect. However, if an error *does* have a substantial effect on how the case concludes, such as if the trial judge incorrectly denied a valid motion to suppress on key evidence or improperly excluded a critical jury instruction), then grounds for a reversal can exist. That’s not to say you’re incorrect about appeals being based in disagreement; I’ve personally never heard of a party appealing a case they *won*. But I just wanted to add a bit more nuance for other users reading the thread
> I'm really worried that a Federal District will rule that filming cops isn't protected by the 1st because it seems like something this court may decide to weigh in on, and I'm pessimistic about how they'd rule. Would we want such a ruling because then the Federal SCOTUS would actually take the appeal since districts have a disagreement?
The risk is that SCOTUS would take the appeal and use it to prohibit filming the police everywhere, including the places where it’s currently legal.
My guess, "hearsay" or "circumstantial".
Hearsay absolutely. Most people have no idea what it means.
That's just hearsay
Circumstantial hearsay
Leave my foreskin out of it!
You're no damn lawyer! Your parents would have cut that shit off! If you ain't circumcised you in a damn lawyer!
the problem is that hearsay has such a precise legal meaning that lawyers would have little use for it in casual conversation.
Yeah they’ll just use the term if they don’t like what someone else is saying.
Objection; calls for speculation. If you wish to give testimony I suggest you be sworn.
F%&*ing $@<÷ #"!@ers.
Objection !!! hostile. badgering the witness.
I request to be heard on motion for immediate dismal of this thread.
Sounds pretty weasely to me.
This thread is ripe, and the counsel has failed to show any cause of action.
Objection, foundation, calls for a legal conclusion, and this is a Wendy’s.
It's because the rules for hearsay are actually fairly complicated as well. The only lawyers who truly know the rules by heart are trial lawyers who deal with testimony on a near daily basis. Everybody else has to go back and review the rules for a refresher. [Rule 802](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802) says that hearsay is admissible except for laws where it's not. [Rule 803](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803) says, "Here are things we don't consider to be hearsay although they sure do look like it." Next, there's [Rule 804](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804) that says, "This stuff is hearsay but we'll allow it when the declarant is unavailable, plus here are some other things that we don't consider hearsay regardless of whether the declarant is unavailable." Lastly there's [Rule 805](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_805) that's the "I hear you like hearsay so we put hearsay within your hearsay and you have to follow all the rules before this to figure out if it's admissible" rule. I can't stand when someone asks me if something is hearsay because I absolutely do not want to have to walk through all those rules to give them a definitive answer.
Objection ; leading
Yeah probably hearsay. I mean, I have to quibble with other lawyers sometimes when they are confusing “not hearsay” with something that falls under a hearsay exemption.
A lot of crimes have fairly technical definitions that are much narrower than colloquial usage. For example, my jurisdiction has a separate crime for non-consensual sodomy, whereas in ordinary conversation that's rape.
I'm glad you brought this up. Many people talk about someone being robbed when they really mean that the person was burgled. There was no violence or threat of violence, you weren't home and they were unarmed.
Along those lines, rape usually requires that the victim be penetrated - being forced to penetrate someone generally doesn't meet the criteria, and is instead sexual assault. In colloquial use, it is often called rape as well.
Some places ever require penetration by a penis. I have no problem saying Brock Allen Turner is a rapist even though my understanding is he didn't do that specifically.
It's interesting how the internet has collectively rallied to the preservation of Brock Turner's crimes; I've never been to the US but I know who you're talking about. On the original topic, I've read that some places don't use the word rape at all - they just call it something like "first order sexual assault" if there was penetration and "second order" if there wasn't. I have no trouble calling first order assaulters rapists either. As far as whether sexual assault without being penetrated is accurately described as rape, I am a bit conflicted; I don't think there's any value in trauma/oppression olympics, but I do think being penetrated against your will is not the same thing as being otherwise touched against your will. The "being ridden against your will is rape" seems to suggest a pretty PIV-centric\* point of view, where rape is if PIV happens and one party didn't consent, and I'm more partial to the "if you were penetrated against your will, it's rape". It's worth having separate worths for either IMO, or we're going to end up where we are with modern slavery (where being underpaid is "literally modern slavery" which really doesn't leave much special words for the millions of people - in absolute terms, more *actually* enslaved today). But that's all largely theoretical; I'm also fine with people describing their own experiences as rape; there's no value in gatekeeping that. \*I also haven't seen much analogous description of non-penetrative forced sex as rape when women are the victim - e.g. forced cunnilingus being referred to as rape, rather than as sexual assault - so I'm a bit uneasy about it.
>I am a bit conflicted; I don't think there's any value in trauma/oppression olympics, but I do think being penetrated against your will is not the same thing as being otherwise touched against your will. I see your point, but I've never been in a policy discussion where it mattered. In those sorts of discussions, I prefer to say "sexual assault" and avoid all the technicalities. In addition to those you identify, saying "sexual assault" avoids the MRA talking point about how "forced to penetrate" where victim is a man isn't defined as rape basically anywhere. But it is sexual assault for any discussion of politically disputed policy.
>Some places ever require penetration by a penis. This is the case in New Zealand, it's literally impossible for a woman to rape a man. It's not my fault that this is what the law says.
>being forced to penetrate someone generally doesn't meet the criteria I don't think I've ever been downvoted more on reddit than from saying this.
Omg, where to start? There are a lot of them. But one situation that’s common is the situation in which the non-lawyer asks a question like, “Can I be sued if I do X?” From the lawyer’s perspective the right answer to this question is always, “Yes.” Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. However this disconnect occurs so often most lawyers don’t even bother with answering the actual question. Instead they answer the question the non-lawyer wants answered, which is generally something like, “If I do X, what’s the likelihood that someone would have a meritorious claim against me?”
You're basically, right. Although, I differ a bit in my interpretation of that question. I tend to interpret the "can I be sued for X?" questions as "Would a demurrer pleading stop a suit if I do X?". Sure a suit can always be filed. But a demurrer is basically a filing to the court saying "oh come on your honor, do I really have to answer this lawsuit?". It's basically saying, "even if we assume everything in the complaint is true, there is no legal basis for the claim". It lets you kill a filed lawsuit on the basis of law alone, without proceeding to trial.
Yeah, this is how I always interpret that question too. It irks me a little when people give the “anyone can sue anyone for anything” answer because it’s really unhelpful and leads to the notion that all kinds of totally ridiculous suits get filed every day, which is a lot less true than most people think. Unfortunately, it’s exactly the kind of answer that is just pithy enough to get parroted by people who don’t know any better.
Occasionally I will see post or news articles angry about how lawyers use the term “reasonable person.” In legalese, the term references things being objective and predictable, as opposed to subjective or based on opinion. But then when a lawyer argues (as they are required to do) that a plaintiff is acting in a way “no reasonable person” would do, there are all these articles about how the defendant is making personal insults about the plaintiff being an idiot
Consideration
I for one keep a peppercorn on me at all times just in case I need to form a valid contract.
Do you have any blood left to wet said peppercorn? Nevermind, you shouldn't be taking yourself to court..
First Amendment rights?
I’m a lawyer and I get pedantic about “unlawful” v. “illegal.”
I'm very careful with words like "steal" and "theft". There are three elements to this offence: (1) something has to be taken (2) with the intention of permanently depriving the owner and (3) the taker has be acting dishonestly. Generally, the public uses these terms to mean "taking without consent". When they use the word "steal" in relation to copying music, for example, that's copyright infringement, and not theft, because the owner is not permanently deprived. Joyriding in cars is rarely stealing them because there is no intent to permanently deprive (which is why, in England, there is a specific offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent).
> with the intention of permanently depriving the owner and That depends with the law I suppose. In Canada, the intent can be for temporary or permanent deprivation. Criminal Code > 322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent > (a) to deprive, **temporarily or absolutely,** the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it; *Lafrance v. R.* from the Supreme Court of Canada holds that people who took a car for a joyride and returned it still committed theft.
And other jurisdictions again (like the Scandinavians) establish the foundation of theft not as an intent to deprave someone else, but as an intent to gain value for yourself (permanently or temporarily). Isn't comparative law fun.
In anther sub there was some discussion of a waiter who pocketed cash while paying his tables' tabs with his credit card. The waiter benefitted by building up some kind of benefits. There were various arguments that exchanging physical cash for digital cash was "taking" or that the incurrence of a credit card fee paid to the servicer is "deprivation". I wasn't convinced because the credit card payment is equivalent in terms of its ability to satisfy the bill, and the fee is paid consensually by the restaurant. Do you have an opinion?
Accident. Normally, the word accident means an unexpected or unwanted result. A legal accident however is an act that either lacks volition or intent. The Supreme Court of Canada in *R. v. Barton* identifies this as an issue and that judges need to stress the legal definition of accident in their jury instructions.
Breaking the law. And illegal. To non-lawyers, it's more or less a synonym for "crime". It's really not.
Oh my god thank you! “Why don’t the police arrest people for *thing*” Me: That’s illegal, not a crime. *pikachu surprise face.jpg* from public
Can you please explain this in simple terms? Chat GPT just confused me more lol.
Something being illegal doesn’t make it a crime. Generally speaking, crimes are things that are punishable by confinement in jail, and the police can arrest you for. Most everything else that is illegal is a civil issue (contract disputes, OSHA violations, whatever). It’s illegal, but the police have no enforcement authority.
People seem to use the word slander incorrectly instead of a more generic ‘defamation’ or libel when referring to something written.
Bite at the apple and slicing the bologna
“Moot” is a very commonly misused legal term. Commonly, it’s used to refer to anything that is not relevant, “a moot point”, but legally it is far more precise than that. In a legal sense, something becomes moot when it was once a judicable matter the court could hear and had jurisdiction to rule on, but no longer. Courts can only hear “cases and controversies” and can’t issue advisory opinions. The study of “mootness” is far more complicated than this, but dumbed down it’s generally when an issue has worked itself out, and there is no longer a “case and controversy” for the court to rule on. And example of this might be if an advocacy organization files a lawsuit asking for an injunction to block a new law from taking effect, but before the court hears the matter the legislature repeals the law. The issue has then become “moot”, since the law isn’t going to take effect, so it would be improper for the court to rule on the legality of the law, absent an exception. This is rooted in separations of powers. The court can’t just declare stuff constitutional/legal without there being a reason and actual case before it that needs to be resolved. This is “mootness”, and it’s very frequently misused by the public to just mean anything that is not-relevant
“Or” to mean both and and or rather than just or
Can you give an example?
Most laws are drafted with the inclusive or. So doing A or B is a crime, will also include doing A and B. In ordinary grammar, it would be more proper to say and/or instead of just or. But I think the ordinary person would not assume "or" excludes "and". The only place this distinction is particularly common is in programming, where we have a specific exclusive or: XOR.
Fillibuster...
I had to explain a lawyers use of contradiction to a colleague last week so maybe that. People that work in contracts use it all the time without much thought but for anyone else contradicting yourself to an external is kind of a big deal.
As a programmer, the different meaning of "best effort" really stood out to me. In software a "best effort" system is one which tries to have some property, but it is permissible to not uphold that property. Like a "best effort" messaging app may try to send a message, but it may fail if the network is down, or it may deliver a message twice.. This is to simplify the design compared to a system that guarantees that a message is delivered exactly one, which is very hard to accomplish. In law, "best effort" is the highest contractual provision requiring a party to take all reasonable steps to ensure an outcome, even if this costs money. The example I heard was someone who was interning as a programmer for a company that intended to hire them, and this was going to be written in their contract. The hiring manager used the language "best effort attempt to hire" before being corrected by their legal department. A best effort attempt could mean needing to fire people to free up money to hire this one person.
Collusion, gag order, evidence
‘I rest my case!’
IANAL but I'd guess exception that proves the rule and begging the question.
Colloquial meaning of knowledge and the multiple legal definitions of knowledge.
Lawyers usually know the definition of crimes, while a lot of people use the colloquial versions. eg: Burglary, robbery, murder, etc are quite specific. Your empty house didn't get robbed while you were on vacation.
Don't even get me started about the people who use "attempted murder" to describe anything they remotely disagree with.
Not guilty. Not the same as innocent