11

The police officers themselves are covered by Qualified Immunity - to put it briefly, a government official acting in their official capacity in a discretionary act (as in, they have some discretion in whether/how they carry out the act) is immune from suit so long as they pay reasonable deference to relevant law. In the case of the police, so long as the ...


11

Murder is one of the few cases where the intention and not just the act is relevant. The act – killing a person – is the same for Mord and Totschlag, whereas fahrlässige Tötung covers acts that have caused the death of a person. The language of the Stgb labels the perpetrator who killed someone as a murderer or manslaughterer depending on their intention. ...


9

The first line is “who kills a person”. That is clearly doing something. And the last three lines describe the motivation, not what you are. That’s very similar to “first degree” and “second degree” murder in the USA although the exact criteria are different - “planning” is not part of the German definition although any German murder is likely planned. ...


6

The General Rule: The Prosecutor And Not The Crime Victim Decides You are correct that this is mostly wrong. Pressing charges is something that happens. But, this simply consists of making a report to law enforcement about an incident and asking that the prosecutor either directly, or indirectly through a request directed to the law enforcement officer to ...


5

While the law seems to imply that you are convicted for being a murderer at all, the actual wording is better translated as following. Emphasis is mine. Section 211 Murder under specific aggravating circumstances [Mord] (1) Whosoever commits murder [altnernate: "A murderer..."] under the conditions of this provision shall be liable to imprisonment ...


5

There's nothing illegal about the media discussing your case. In fact most media outlets don't hold back many details about the accused, because it's all public information that anyone curious about it can get from the court clerk's office for free and with no reason specified. If jury selection hasn't started yet, then asking each juror about what they ...


5

No. The government enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning that it cannot be sued unless it consents to being sued. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346) generally permits negligence actions against federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service. But 28 U.S.C. § 2680 carves out an exception for "any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or ...


5

Yes, it can do that. A city can constitutionally ban having an inoperable vehicle in your privately owned driveway, and can remedy a violation of its city ordinance by towing the vehicle, after providing you with the due process steps outlined in the ordinance below. The relevant municipal ordinance is as follows: ARTICLE II. - ABANDONED, WRECKED, ETC.,...


4

In the US, the various crimes regarding mail theft, tampering are federal crimes, esp. 18 USC 1708 and 18 USC 1702. USPS has a web page about reporting mail theft here, and ultimately it would be prosecuted by the US Attorney's office. However, it is not guaranteed that the US Attorney will prosecute every case brought to his attention, instead, the case ...


4

The Evidence Would be Admissible. Under the so-called "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule the evidence would probably be admitted over Bob's objections in both cases mentioned in the question. Recent US court decisions have limited the exclusionary rule when police officers reasonably but mistakenly believe that a valid warrant exists, and find ...


4

Though if the police were able to find some other proof of a hidden partition, such as conversations the suspect had with someone where the suspect refers to his use of such a partition, they may be able to meet a sufficient burden of proof to compel the suspect to make the content of the partition available to them? The US courts have ruled on this, and ...


3

Theoretically you could, but that's highly unlikely if what you say is all there is to it. The prosecutor would have to have good evidence that you had a criminal intent, for example intended to make off with the goods. You could even attach a note of explanation to overcome any suspicion of criminal intent.


2

Yes If you are fleeing, and an officer (let's assume lawfully) orders you to "stop" and you keep fleeing then you clearly have not stopped. Thus, you have disobeyed the order. The only instance I can think of where this might be an argument for a courtroom is where an officer orders "don't start running" while you are already obviously running. I ...


2

Short answer, No. In the United State, all aircraft (even of other countries) may not have gambling devices onboard under title 49 SS 41311 An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not install, transport, or operate, or permit the use of, any gambling device onboard an aircraft In Russia, gambling was banned in almost every part of Russia in 2009 ...


2

There is a difference between knowing the law and knowing the facts. Usually, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But for criminal offenses, ignorance of the facts is an excuse. Another way of putting it is, to be guilty, the suspect must have intended to perform the action that's illegal. Suppose I intend to hunt deer in Vermont. Without realizing it, I ...


2

There have been several cases with several outcomes. Here’s what I think the current state is: You never have to produce the password. Unlocking the drive without anyone seeing the password is good enough. If the mere fact that you can decrypt the drive is incriminating then decrypting it would be self-incriminating and you don’t have to do that. The ...


2

They still have the power They generally don’t because: Most activities of a criminal nature no matter how novel can be shoehorned as a new instance of an existing crime. Parliament is much more pro-active in its legislative agenda. The judicial system moves much more slowly.


2

Not for that reason This would not make the Act invalid. The interaction between the two laws would simply mean that criminal prosecution would only succeed for acts on or after the Act came into effect. So, even though the law purports to invoke criminal sanction for acts before it came into effect, the Constitution says it can’t so it doesn’t. That doesn’...


2

Not just legal precedence, but the 6th amendment to the constitution of the United States. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be ...


2

Yes. The President can pardon everyone (with the possible exception of himself) of crimes, and can pardon people by category rather than by name. But, the President can only pardon federal crimes that have been committed and are mentioned in the pardon. However, the federal crimes do not have to have resulted in convictions or even charges to be ...


1

You can be convicted twice for being the murderer in two different cases As in "You are the murderer in this case" in the same spirit as "he is the victim" - which is not a general statement of this person having a victim-like property, but a shorthand description of his role in this case, like another person having the role of "the murderer" in this case, ...


1

If the lies amount to fraud, and if the company also benefits from the fraud, the company might be held to be a party to the fraud. Even if the company does not benefit, the company, or more likely the responsible executives who had actual knowledge of the fraud, might be held to be accomplices in the fraud, if the fraud is treated as a criminal matter. Most ...


1

Police can lie However, in the United States they have to read you your Miranda warning (most other democratic countries have similar warnings): You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with ...


1

The Supreme Court originally ruled in Massachusetts v Mellon and has held in United States v. Richardson that there is no general doctrine of "taxpayer standing." The majority opinion in United States v. Richardson states The acceptance of new categories of judicially cognizable injury has not eliminated the basic principle that, to invoke judicial power,...


1

You could seek an injunction prohibiting this This would make any future instances contempt of court. However, there are a number of difficulties: it’s expensive. Only the Supreme Court can issue injunctions and you would expect to pay about $20,000 in legal fees and court costs, possibly more if it was contested. you need to serve your relative with the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible