Project REAL

Pictured: A BB Gun and box of BB-pellets. People have treated these as toys for years, but they can be used to kill.  

BB guns are a type of rifle that are treated as toys since they only use air to shoot small metal balls, rather than relying on the explosive force that gives bullets their fatal speeds.  

An unfortunate incident involving a BB gun in Tampa, Florida led to a 17 year old dying after he was shot in the eye with one.  Although the majority of accidents involving BB guns are the result of the gun handlers failing to use eye protection, that wasn’t the case here.  The young man died as a result of his family-friend in the back seat - who was 8 years old - accidentally causing the gun to go off.

The two had been riding in the car with the 17-year-old friend-of-the-family in the front seat, and the adult driver’s children (including the 8 year old) riding in the back.  The incident began as the adult driver pulled up to an ATM and exited the car, leaving the minors unsupervised.

The youngest in the back seat, the 8-year-old was attempting to move the BB gun not knowing that it was loaded.  When the child moved the gun, it fired off a BB striking the 17-year-old front-passenger in the eye.

BB guns are widely seen as toys.  In reality, they are capable of major damage to property and (as is the case here) to lives. The companies that manufacture these devices often recommend the use of eye protection and to keep them out of the reach of young children.  Keeping a BB gun in the back seat of a car and accessible to unsupervised minors is a scenario that is not recommended.

The 8-year old who caused the gun to go off didn’t mean for it to do that.  Reports say the child explained they had been moving it out of the way so that they wouldn’t step on it and cause it to break when the incident occurred.

Regardless of the circumstance, there is a 17-year-old boy who lost his life because of an oversight of the adult in the car keeping a BB gun in their back seat.

Questions:

1: Should anyone be charged in the death of the 17 year old? Who is really to blame, the 8 year old, or the adult driver who had left the BB gun in the back seat to begin with? Explain your answer.

2: If the adult driver had left a real firearm in the back seat, what would change about the case?

3: In the state of Nevada, what are the minimum and maximum consequences would the adult face for leaving a minor in the back seat with a loaded firearm accessible?

4: If the boy had been an adult themselves and shot a minor, what are the maximum and minimum charges they could face?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/11/us/teenager-bb-gun-death-trnd/index.html

(Pictured: You see kids, when two self-driving vehicles fall in love they make robot-babies.... and those robot-babies grow up to become our FUTURE ROBOT OVERLORDS. But hey, Tesla cars are cool!)

When someone breaks a law, they generally get in trouble - that’s just the way the world work. Systems of law have been managing the conduct of nations and their citizens as long as civilizations have been in place.  With the technology renaissance of the 21st century, a new form of life has been participating in society, and just like humans some of them have begun to break laws.  We are talking about - of course - robots.

In 2015, a self-driving car created by Google was operating in the area around the company’s headquarters.  The driverless vehicle had been on a road near ‘the company campus’ when it ended up getting pulled over - for going 10 miles an hour below the speed limit!  Basically, it had been violating traffic laws by holding up traffic without a good reason.

News outlets report that the officer after discovering that there was no one driving the car, contacted the operators responsible for programming the vehicle. The article also reports that several cars in the Google self-driving fleet have been in accidents, although none of them have been reported to be the self-driving car’s fault.  The incident comes on the heels of many people questioning the safety of self-driving vehicles.

For many years now, electric car manufacturer Tesla has touted its self-driving initiative and how much safer it is than actually driving.  Tesla’s critics are still skeptical of the company’s self-driving vehicles’ capacity to be safe at all, pointing to a National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB) investigation of a 2018 fatal accident that involved a self-driving Tesla.  In that incident, the car’s driver life being lost (instead of steering the car, the ‘driver’ had handed control over to the vehicle's self-driving computer when the accident took place). The NTSB  report found that the Tesla vehicle had actually acted in a way meant to try the driver, however the vehicle still ended up crashing.   Many skeptics of self-driving vehicles point to that crash in particular as a reason that driverless cars and trucks should not be allowed on the roadways.

Instances like the fatal Tesla crash and the slow self-driving  Google car provide examples of a significant issue that goes beyond just general safety - one that will become more relevant as technology continues to evolve: 

So, when a robot or AI commits a crime that puts humans or other lives in danger, who is responsible in a legal sense?

Technology has and will continue to develop at a rate that the law can’t keep up with. If there are robots used to make work easier in a factory for example, who is responsible if a ‘thinking’ machine harms a human worker in a workplace accident -  the programmer, the actual ‘code’ of the machine, the company, or someone (or something) else entirely?  As companies, manufacturers, and even governments are beginning to make the push for automated processes like self-driving vehicles that include the use of Robots, AI, and other ‘driverless’ technologies, we will all begin to be faced with these questions.  

Questions:

1: Who should be held civilly and/or criminally accountable when a robot is involved in  crime?  Explain your choice(s)

2: What laws should be put in place to ensure that the right entities (people / companies / robots) are held accountable for Artificial Intelligence related problems, and how will they help prevent or address those problems?

3: What are some things that a robot could do to break a law?

4: Should a person who built a robot that commits a crime, be charged to the same level as contributing to the crime or aiding in it? Explain why you think they should or should not.

Be sure to explain the thinking behind your answers, and for more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over-driving-too-slowly

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/02/13/ntsb-releases-report-on-2018-fatal-silicon-valley-tesla-autopilot-crash/#395bd32842a8

YouTube can teach people a lot of different things: cooking, gaming, music... even lock-picking!  If there’s a skill you would like to pickup, YouTube probably has a video about it!  Just because someone teaches you how to do something on YouTube, that doesn’t mean you should actually do it.

In Ohio, an 8-year-old boy (who is not identified by name due to his age) used YouTube to watch a video for people learning how to drive. After watching the video, he decided he was well prepared and decided to go out and try out his new skills. Unaware that he was doing something wrong, the rookie NASCAR driver invited his sister to tag along with him on a drive to McDonald’s.

Generally it is common knowledge that the legal age to drive is generally 16 years old throughout the United States.  Most people closer to that age know better and know not to get behind a wheel. However according to police, this little boy did not know any better, which led to his having a bit of an adventure in the driver’s seat of a car.

According to the boy’s statement, the parents had not been monitoring the situation, which is what led to his being able to get ahold of their keys and bringing his little sister along for the joyride.

According to reports, the unnamed child-driver managed to steer the family car to a McDonald’s drive thru in search of a cheeseburger. When he arrived at the window, the employees were overcome with a combination of shock, laughter, and confusion as they saw a little boy driving a car with his little sister in the vehicle as well.

Police questioned the boy and had discovered his research into driving a car and that he did not know he was doing something wrong. Witnesses had even told the officers that the boy had driven  the 1.5 mile route perfectly and obeyed all traffic rules (well, except the fact that he was 8!).

Even though he lacked criminal intent and regardless of the fact that he drove the car well, the child still took his parents car without their knowledge.  As a result, he had placed his little sister and himself in grave danger.

Authorities have begun looking into violations relating to parenting and child protection laws. After all, how could two parents not notice their son take their keys, grab his sister, and then proceed to get in the car and drive away?  Although early reports did not point to child neglect, authorities planned to continue investigating to ensure they children are being raised in a safe environment.

Questions:

1: Whose fault is it? The boy who took the car? Or the parents who weren’t paying enough attention for him to be able to take it?

2: Had he been an adult without a license, should he have been arrested? Why or why not?

3: Should the boy have gone to juvenile hall and faced real consequences for choosing to break a rule? Why or why not?

4: If you broke a law that you didn’t know existed, should you still be charged normally or given a warning? Why or why not?

Be sure to explain the thinking behind your answers, and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

Being a responsible gun owner involves a lot of care and the ability to make good decisions.  Clearly, shooting your friend while they are wearing a bullet proof vest would not be an example of either of those behaviors.  Despite that, two fifty-year old men in Arkansas found themselves facing criminal charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm in that exact situation.  Here’s what happened:

Around April 2018, Charles Eugene Ferris, 50, and Christopher Hicks, 36 had a terrible idea (they were drunk, so they thought it was a GREAT idea….as you can tell from the headline, they were wrong).   While intoxicated both men began to take turns with a .22 caliber rifle. Ferris was shot once in the chest and was left with a large red mark. Ferris then proceeded to unload a clip into Hicks’ back in retaliation.

The men arrived at the hospital after Ferris complained of chest pain. After learning that it was a result of a gunshot wound, the police were called to take a statement.

Reports explained that while this story is already bizarre, it gets much weirder. The two men came up with an elaborate story to try and cover up their drunken adventures, telling the police they were bodyguards that had been hired to protect a client.  While it is unclear which of the two men said it, according to the police report one of them claimed to have followed ‘the client’ into a forest, and that the client was then shot at.  According to their story, the shooting was what led to Ferris having six bruises in the back from gunshots.

Police actually believed the story at first, but then Ferris’ wife showed up to the hospital and told the authorities what actually happened.

After learning the truth about the requested shooting, the man admitted he had made the story up to protect his friend who had originally shot him.

Stories like this always have the potential to turn out much worse than they already do. There are a number of different factors that could have ended up taking one of the men’s lives or even worse, the lives of others around them that had nothing to do with the act of shooting your friend for fun.

All it takes for a situation like this to turn from minor injuries to a deadly consequence is a poor aim, a faulty bullet-proof vest, or a bystander walking by at the wrong time. These are a few of the reason’s laws are made to protect lives. Both of the men are responsible for their actions, as well of what their actions could have turned into had something gone terribly wrong.

Questions:

1: Is an activity like this protected by the Second Amendment? Why or Why not?

2: Could the men be exercising their lawful gun rights but ALSO charged w/ some kind of   charges about endangering the public? How, or why not?

3: If this happened in Nevada, how many years in jail, how much money fined, and what other consequences would these men face after an action like this?

4. Imagine one of the men had died as a result of this incident, then list 3 criminal charges they would face if the incident happened in Nevada. Then, list the maximum amount of penalties that defendant would be faced with if they were to face those charges. Finally, imagine instead of the bullet hitting one of the men as willing participants, imagine if the bullet hit a random passer-by.  Explain if the charges faced by the shooter would be the same or different, and why that would be the case.

When two players get into fight in hockey, when two boxers hit each other during a boxing match, and when two UFC fighters engage in combat during a bout, they have all agreed to participate in the fight.  When they are done fighting, no one is arrested.

On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.

To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.

There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”

But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-el-cajon-california-arrests_us_5a5de4f4e4b0fcbc3a1355f4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And / or

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#fe8283b4884

Questions (answer them all!):

1. How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?

2. Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified? 

3. Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?

4. (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?

We are taught not to copy a person’s work since it can get us in trouble. According to an article by Above The Law, a law firm is suiting another firm on the basis of copying and hijacking their website.

In Illinois, Motta & Motta is suing Dolci & Weiland over the alleged hijacking and plagiarism. The suit claims that Dolci capitalized on Motta’s reputation by using website hashtags and headers to mislead search engines into believing Motta’s website is Dolci’s website. According to the suit allegations, Dolci & Weiland’s website mirrored Motta’s copyrighted design and content and even copied (verbatim) articles and blogs on Motta’s website.

In school, we are taught many basic principles such as reading, writing, mathematics, but we also introduced into many ethical values as well, such as responsibility, quality, leadership, respect, and honesty. One way these ethical values are exercised is through integrity and not committing plagiarism. This article brings up some interesting points relating to privacy, defamation, and fraud and how Dolci’s law firm was acting unlawfully. Instead of Dolci taking the time to create their website and content, they are now facing a lengthy legal process that is going to cost them a lot of money!

Questions:

1.In what situations is it against the law to impersonate someone online?

2. When would impersonating a person online be a form of fraud, or why would it not be a fraud? 

3. The law firm that claimed to be victimized specifically mentioned hashtags in their complaint.  Hashtags are basically hyperlinks: text that results in being connected to related information.  If the law firm sued only over the plagiarism of the hashtags on their website, why do you think they would or would not have a good chance of winning their case in court?  Be specific by using other lawsuits or trademark and copyright news articles as examples when creating your response.*  

----------------- *Hint #1: Are companies guaranteed websites with their names? *Hint #2: What are some examples of trademarks, copyrights, and the differences between the two?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/law-firm-claims-rival-sucked-up-business-by-copying-and-hijacking-their-website/

When it comes to meat products, this is a major market within the United States. Besides Lady Gaga wearing a slab of red meats, Americans on average eat over 100 pounds of meat per year. But, what does meat have to do with law?

On August 29th, 2018, a Missouri law was passed to require that only products that come from slaughterhouses, once-breathing animals can be marketed as meat. Specifically, the law labels meat as something that is harvest from production livestock or poultry. The law is intended to inform the public on what exactly is in the product.

For instance, in cases in which plant-based products (soy, eggplant, etc.) are made into burgers, they cannot be labeled as such since they did not come from a slaughterhouse and were not “once-breathing animals.”

A similar bill is currently being reviewed within the Senate. The US Department of Agriculture is considering to establish beef and meat labeling requirements and to exclude products not derived directly from animals raised and slaughtered from the definition of “beef” and “meat”.

The reason for this law, on a federal level, is to better inform consumers and there are no labeling requirements currently for labeling beef or meat. The major concern is from a non-profit corporation from Montana called the “United States Cattlemen’s Association” and are concerned with the ‘synthetic products’ being introduced into the market and being marketed as ‘beef’.  

The controversy over this case comes from people who consider plant-based products as ‘meaty’ or ‘soy roast beef’. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that this categorizing infringes on the First Amendment rights and prevents the clear and accurate labeling of plant-based and clean meat products. The plaintiffs claim that this is a way for them to stifle plant-based meats in grocery stores.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Florida. A state law required milk product to be labeled as “skim milk” only if it had the same level of Vitamin A as whole milk. Dairy farmers begged to differ and sued, saying that their product was skim milk and should be deemed as such. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the dairy farmer’s favor since the farm’s “use of the words ‘skim milk’ to describe its skim milk is not inherently misleading.”

Overall, this case is currently being debated and it is now your turn to voice your opinion!

Questions:

What does the US Department of Agriculture do?

How do you feel the First Amendment does or does not apply to this case?

Should plant-based products be allowed to use the word ‘meat’ in their name, and why do you feel that way? 

Explain your answers and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/642937901/whats-meat-anyway-missouri-label-law-says-it-comes-from-an-animal-some-disagree?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180829

Here’s an optional additional starting place as you develop your responses (Note: Consider the source! Who’s writing it, and do they have a story they want you to believe, or are they presenting all the facts?):

http://www.uscattlemen.org/Templates/pdfs_USCA/2018-PDFs/2-9-18USCA-AMS-Petition-re-definition-of-beef-and-meat.pdf

On January 24th, 2018, the prosecutor’s office in Big Horn County, Montana is cracking down on any expectant mothers who use drugs or drink alcohol. A court attorney is fighting to seek restraining orders against those pregnant women and is encouraging the public to report drug or alcohol incidents to the sheriff department.

The reason behind this movement is to limit child abuse during labor and to make the mother accountable for her actions. According to the article, roughly half of all U.S. states now consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse. One way it is child abuse is a birth defect called ‘sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).’

On the flip side, if the government intervenes on the well-being of a mother and her baby, it will cause a slippery slope that will jeopardize with the well-being of the mother and the fetus. Another aspect is that a woman will refuse to seek help if they feel they will be reprimanded for their outreach, which causes a discrepancy within the health provider's field.

When it comes to the aspect of law and justice, many roles are filled by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Police officers are tasked to patrol certain areas and stop, and or prevent crime from happening. If there is probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the officer has a right to issue a stop and act accordingly per state laws and policies. As for Prosecutors, if a person is charged with a crime, the prosecutor reviews all of the evidence that is presented within a case. Lastly, for the judge evaluates all of the aspects of the case and pleads the defendant guilty or not guilty. 

Explain your answers to the questions below, and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pregnant-women-big-horn-county-montana_us_5a674bf8e4b0e5630073b88c?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Questions:

1. Why do you think it is or is not ethical to prosecute expected mothers who use drugs or alcohol?

2. How is the mother hurting the unborn child while using drugs or alcohol?

3. Do you think the judge’s policy will help reduce the number of cases of SIDS in the community, have no impact on the number of cases, or cause an increase in the number of cases, and why do you think the policy will have that effect? 

4. Why do you feel the judge’s plan is the best one for the community, or what better solutions would you recommend and why would you recommend those over the one the judge has come up with?

On August 3rd of 2018, a video surfaced from California as a man in a suit drags an unconscious man off the train to avoid delay.

Controversial as this incident may be, the video depicts a white male in a suit dragging an unconscious black man. During the incident, the white male was recorded by a passenger on the train. The passenger explained how the unconscious man was wearing a medical bracelet, had metal staples in his skull, and threw up before going unconscious. In the video, onlookers expressed their anger towards the man in the suit by saying he had no right to assume he was partying, per an eyewitness. As an act of retaliation towards the man in the suit, the passengers held the train doors open, to prevent the train from leaving while they phoned the paramedics.

Once paramedics and officers arrived on the scene, the unconscious man was taken to the hospital, but the man in the suit was not investigated or a point of interest in this case. The video of this incident was posted on Youtube and gained momentum by its audience and local news stations. This is still an ongoing investigation.

Explain your answers and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://lbpost.com/news/crime/video-man-drags-unconscious-passenger-off-blue-train-train-in-long-beach-to-avoid-delay/

Questions (answer them all!):

1. Just because someone broke a law, that doesn’t mean they’ll always be prosecuted for it, so was it lawful for the man in the suit to drag the unconscious man to train platform, and would it lawful for him to leave the man behind?

2. In this case, the man in the suit will not be charged with this act, explain why you agree or disagree with this decision.

3. 'Duty to rescue’ laws require people to help others if they witness someone in trouble and are able to help without endangering themselves.  Are there 'duty to rescue’ or similar laws where you live, and do you agree with your community having or not having them? 

Within the last year, there has been a rise in political speech and activism towards many momentous events, such as North Korean conflict, same-sex marriage, to Twitter going beyond 140 characters! In relation to this article, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the boycott against Israel, resulting in a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

Why is there a boycott on Israel and why is it becoming an international movement?

According to a Time article, the boycott movement was started by the Israelis-Zionist (a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation, Israel) liberals who support Israel’s existence on land it won in the 1948 war, but with Israel’s occupation in Palestinian territory in 1967, the Israelis wanted to boycott goods produced by Israeli companies (that operate on Palestinian land). Over time, this situation gained different opinions from other countries. Some felt sympathetic towards the Palestinians while others were in favor of Israel.

For more information regarding the history of the Boycott campaign, click here!

Which leads us to the boycott movement today. Around the world, people are expressing their avoidance of Israel and are getting punished for it. For instance, in France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. In the U.K., has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. Leading into the United States, U.S. governors are trying to impose strict regulations of any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements. In July 2017, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. But, people have questioned that penalizing boycotting may infringe upon the first amendment’s freedom of speech and protest.

Questions: 1. How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment?

2. How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment? 3. Why do you think boycotting as a form of activism should or should not be a felony offense?

Some critics of the attempted boycott ban argued that this type of ban would not be attempted if it was any other nation allied with the United States, and that jewish and christian law makers have suggested the ban because of religious beliefs rather than out of national security concerns.  Remember: the First Amendment suggests there should be some separation of church and state, but how that separation should look has led to many legal battles throughout American history. With those observations in mind: 4a. Why do you feel that it is acceptable or unacceptable for lawmakers to make decisions based on their own personal beliefs when serving in government, and 4b. How are your feelings (as explained in response to 4a) supported or not supported by the wording of the First Amendment,  and what precedent-setting legal decisions support your response?

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to an attorney….”  Those words – which you may recognize from shows or movies – are the words used to inform someone who is being arrested if their Miranda Rights.   They’re not just for entertainment though – they are very real rights every American is entitled to, but they have only been read to suspects since 1966.  That process came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but their origins date back much earlier. In fact, the process of reading a suspect their Miranda Rights is rooted in a historical event that took place in 1919.

That year, a triple murder of foreign diplomats occurred in Washington D.C. (a diplomat is someone who acts as the representative of a foreign government). The three victims all worked for the Chinese Educational Mission before being assassinated. When there were no leads or clear motives, the police focused in on the only suspect they had.

On the day of the assassinations, a young Chinese student named Ziang Sung Wan had been seen at the house where the killings had occurred. The police went to his home in New York and after searching it without a warrant, pressured Wan (who was suffering from a flu at the time) into going back to Washington D.C.  with them.  Upon their arrival, the authorities isolated Ziang in a hotel room and held him without formally placing him under formal arrest.  After extended periods of isolation and interrogation that lasted more than 9 days, they eventually pressured him into making a confession.

During trial for the murders, Wan took back his confession, saying that he only confessed to make the detectives’ interrogation come to an end. The judge refused to acknowledge Wan’s statement despite the conditions that were used to obtain his confession.  Eventually, Wan was found guilty of first degree-murder.  At the time, the penalty for a guilty first-degree murder conviction was death-by-hanging.

Wan’s case was one of many at the time that had stirred debate among judges and lawyers in the country over which police conduct and interrogation methods were lawful, and which of those methods and behaviors were unlawful.  At the same time, Ziang’s attorneys were filing appeals and pursuing their client’s acquittal relentlessly, knowing that his life was on the line.  Eventually Ziang’s lawyers managed to get his case heard by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

As a result of the raging national debate in the law community over police tactics and the constitutional questions raised by Ziang’s case, one justice was tasked with drafting up a decision that would lay the groundwork for the Miranda Rights we know today.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote the court’s decision, in which the court interpreted the Fifth Amendment as permitting only volunteer confessions as being admissible as evidence in federal court proceedings, and that a confession could be coerced involuntarily even if an explicit threat had not made.

If that’s too wordy, think about it like this: The police didn’t tell Ziang “If you don’t confess we’re going to break your legs”.  Because they held him for 9 days though - while he was sick, in uncomfortable conditions, and without telling him when they would stop -  they had basically forced him to confess to end the torment he was experiencing.

Unfortunately, because Wan had been tried in Washington D.C. (which is a federal jurisdiction) the new standard only applied to cases in federal courts. The ruling wouldn’t apply to states or local court proceedings for years.  The standard created by Justice Brandeis’ ruling also ended up being interpreted in a variety of ways for decades after it was first issued.  For years after the ruling, cases ended up before SCOTUS that would produce rulings which added more specificity to Justice Brandeis’ initial court opinion on Ziang’s case.

Eventually, in 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren would mandate safeguards for suspects dealing with police in the opinion he issued for SCOTUS in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.  Those safeguards would eventually develop into the Miranda Rights most people are familiar with today. His writings leaned heavily on the court opinion issued in response to Wan’s case, making it clear the Ziang Sung Wan v. United States is the legal soil from which the Miranda Rights we know today grew from.

Thanks to the Wan and Miranda decisions, today suspects are informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in the court of law, that they have the right to counsel, and that if they are unable to afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them.

1)    Now that you know some of the history behind Miranda Rights, do you have any feelings about your right to remain silent? What questions do you have about your right to remain silent?

2)      TV may lead you to think that the right to remain silent is only used by criminals who are done talking to police and want to leave the interview.  That’s not the case at all though.  What are some situations that could lead someone to exercise their right to remain silent?

3)      Suppose you found yourself needing to exercising your right to remain silent.  What would that look like?  Simply saying “I wouldn’t talk” isn’t enough: Tell us Why you might have decided to exercise your right, what you would do while exercising that right, how you would be treated while exercising the right, and the possible benefits and consequences of remaining silent.

When replying to any of the questions above, please provide detailed responses.  If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1919-murder-case-gave-americans-right-remain-silent-180968916/

Thieves in one Texas community attempted to steal courthouse ATMs three times in just one week!  During the third attempt, thieves used a stolen pickup truck to smash the back door of the courthouse, attached some sort of strap to the ATM and dragged the machine out of the building.

It is unknown if the suspects who stole the ATM on the third attempt were behind the previous two incidents, but the timing is certainly suspicious.  Whether they were the same people or different ones, the people behind each of those incidents will face serious consequences once they are caught!

If the thieves had taken the time to think about their actions or if they’d been fortunate enough to know some basic things about the law, they’d realize the risks that come with getting caught involved with these heists are ridiculous!    

Very few criminal charges result in a trial for the defendant.  That means the accused rarely has a chance of being acquitted (being declared ‘not guilty’ of the crime he or she has been charged with).   That’s because trials are expensive and don’t guarantee an outcome.  Most of the time, lawyers for both sides will negotiate a deal to avoid a trial and to guarantee they get the best outcome they could hope for if things did not go their way in court.  In criminal cases, a lot of time that can mean the person being charged still ends up going to prison, they just go for less time than they would if they had been found guilty in a trial.  

One of the tools a prosecutor has to motivate defense teams to negotiate is their ability to ‘stack charges’.  In the ATM story, you might think “Ok, the thieves will be charged with stealing the ATM”.  It’s not that simple though!

Consider all these things that we already know about the ATM theft incidents:

- The thieves stole a truck to use for the ATM theft

- The thieves used a stolen truck to commit the ATM theft

- The thieves were trespassing in the courthouse after hours

- The thieves broke into a property

- The thieves damaged a property

- The thieves broke into a courthouse, which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves damaged a courthouse which may interfere with courthouse proceedings

- The thieves used a vehicle to intentionally damage a courthouse

- The thieves stole the court’s property

- The thieves stole an item worth thousands of dollars

- The thieves stole an ATM, which can also be considered a form of bank robbery

- The thieves may have spent the money in the ATM

Those aren’t just 12 facts about the case – they are 12 possible charges that could be filed against a person for one criminal incident. That means the person would be charged with 12 crimes from the one event!  That also means the defendant would face 12 different punishments if they were found guilty of each charge!

Don’t forget: Thieves had attempted to steal ATM’s from courthouses in the area 3 times that week!  If someone was convicted on all of the charges for just one of those incidents, an angry judge could sentence them to spend what would likely be the rest of their lives in prison.  If they were found guilty of all the crimes related to all 3 ATM incidents that week,  things might be even worse for them!

1)    What is the minimum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

2)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for one incident, if it happened in Nevada?

3)    What is the maximum punishment a person could receive from the state if they were found guilty of all 12 charges for all three ATM incidents, if they happened in Nevada?

4)    What federal laws were broken by the ATM thieves, and what is the maximum federal punishment they could receive?

5)    If the thieves were caught and found guilty of all charges related to the final robbery in Nevada’s state court, and then they were found guilty of all the possible federal charges in Federal Court, what is the maximum penalty they would face?

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions. The article this piece was originally sourced from is available here if you’d like to get a few more details first:

http://abc7chicago.com/thieves-target-texas-courthouse-atm-for-3rd-time-in-a-week/3365855/

Directors Anthony and Joe Russo received death threats for not putting the character Hawkeye in “Avengers: Infinity War.” His absence was first noticed when the first movie trailer was released in November 2017. As time got closer to the movie release date, it became clearer that Hawkeye wasn’t going to be featured in the movie.  As a result, some of Hawkeye’s fans revealed that even villains love superheroes.

Actor Jeremy Renner, who plays Hawkeye, revealed that the director brothers were receiving death threats because his character was not included in the movie. When asked how he felt about the dedication being shown by some of his less respectable fans, Renner said “It’s a nice feeling I suppose. I think the Russo brothers got way too many death threats. I’m like, ‘Wow, dude, that’s intense. I’m sorry.”

Looking at Nevada Revised Statute 202.448, these threats appear to be criminal.   The statue defines “making threats or conveying false information regarding acts of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, lethal agents or toxins” as a criminal act.

NRS is a Nevada statute, but certain acts of issuing a threat are also federal crimes!  United States Code Title 18 Chapter 41 Section 875 states that “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

1) What are the maximum amount of penalties could be faced by the people who made the death threats to The Russo Brothers?

2) Explain the different legal penalties for threats made in person in comparison to threats made over the internet?

3) List 3 other laws regarding threats (other than NRS 202.448 and USC.18.41.875, and report what the maximum penalty for each one is.

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/infinity-war-directors-received-death-threats-over-hawkeyes-absence-2018-6

One of the things the Nixon Presidential Administration will always be remembered for are the tapes made in the Whitehouse. Now thought of as a matter of history, at the time the taped recordings made at the white house were highly controversial.  These taped records of conversation in the White House are credited as having played a major role in the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Given all of that history, a situation where tape, record, president, and white house can be used in the same sentence is one that most administrations would try to avoid.  The 45th president of the United States however has a reputation for doing things differently, which may be why we have this interesting story to share with you:

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 states that all presidential records must be preserved.  You may not be familiar with the law, since you’re not President of The United States. So, you know – that’s fair.

When someone is elected to the Presidency of the United States for their first term, there’s a transition period during which they are taught about policies, procedures, and laws they need to abide by.

Despite measures like the briefings given to a president-elect, President Donald Trump apparently has a habit of ripping up things like notes, memos and other papers when he has finished with them. White house staffers have reportedly been taping these documents back together after the President has torn, ripped, or shredded them so that the administration remains in compliance with The Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Invitations, letters and newspaper clips with notes are regularly torn up by President Trump. Clear scotch tape was given to employees to piece the ripped documents back together. One employee who was fired early on in 2018 that had claimed he put papers back together on the job said “We’re making more than $60,000 a year, we need to be doing far more important things than this. It felt like the lowest form of work you can take on without having to empty the trash cans.”

The employee who was fired claims that when he left the office, employees were still regularly engaged in the practice of taping documents back together. Some White House staff called the ripping habit Trump’s ‘unofficial filing system.’ The White House had no comment on the situation when asked.

1) In America, no person – including - the president is not above the law.  Everyone needs to #PlayByTheRules.  That being said, if the documents are able to be pieced back together, does President Trump’s tearing up documents count as ‘document destruction’?  Could it be successfully argued that tearing up documents is just a really bad system of organization that makes records preservation harder?

2) What if the president were to go further though?  Imagine instead of liking to tear up documents when being done with them, a president preferred to set them on fire.  Clearly then, the document would be destroyed.  What would the legal consequences be for violating The Presidential Records Act of 1978?

3) Pick a side: Do you think that there are any laws a president should be exempt from?

- If you agree: What laws should a president be exempt from, and what are the reasons for exempting the president?

- If you disagree: Why should the president have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Are there benefits, and if so what are they?  Is is simply to avoid risks, and if so what risks are being avoided by making presidents follow every single law that everyone else has to follow?  Give a thoughtful, detailed, response!

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rips-documents_us_5b1e030de4b09d7a3d744da2

China’s government has begun to implement a system that ranks its population with a score based on their ‘social credit’.

The Chinese social credit score is similar to a financial credit score - it moves up or down depending on the behavior of the person being scored. The program is already being piloted for millions of Chinese citizens, and China’s government hopes the system will be in place for all of its citizens by 2020.  The program was first announced in 2014.  According to a government document, the system is meant to support the national ideal that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful.”

Any number of actions can impact a person’s social credit score in China’s program like trying to ride a train without a ticket, smoking in a non-smoking area, lingering in public spaces without explanation.  Those are all reasons someone’s social score might be lowered, and they may seem reasonable – but there are other reasons that seem more troubling.

Whether someone buys unnecessary items, the amount of time they spend playing video games, what they post on social media, and if they spread what the government deems to be fake news are also sources of social score point reductions.

If you’re not already familiar with the Chinese Government’s definition of ‘fake news’, Google ‘China Government Tiananmen Square State News’, find a reliable source to learn from, and read an article or two about it.  Then, think about their social scoring system again.

Refusing military service can also have a negative effect on your score.

If someone happens to get a bad social credit score, they could face barriers such as restricted travel. Meaning if your score is low enough you could be prevented from buying domestic flight tickets and business-class train tickets. You could also be barred from enrolling in higher education, unable to continue your studies and may not be able to enroll your kids in private schools.

Think about that: If you’re a straight A student that plays a lot of video games, you could be barred from enrolling in higher education because of how much you enjoy gaming – despite your good grades!

Having a good social credit score can also provide rewards like speeding up travel applications, receiving discounts on energy bills and even getting more matches on dating websites! Some citizens in China claim that the system has already made people’s behaviors improve.

If a system like China’s ‘social credit score’ program were to be implemented in America by the US Government, would the program violate American citizen’s constitutional rights? If so, what rights would be violated and what amendments or constitutional clauses establish those rights in the first place?

Constitutional rights aside, would you want to live in a country with a social scoring system?  Why or why not?

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the articles this piece was originally sourced from are available here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

and here: www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit

Bonus Question / Consider This (and only respond directly to the final question): If you were forced to live in a country with a social scoring system, what protections would you put in place to make sure everyone was treated fairly by the system?  For example: If someone proposed points should be awarded to people that participating in sports, would that be fair to a quadriplegic? Should quadriplegics get bonus points? Is that fair for people that just don’t like sports?   This sounds challenging, but in the context of the questions above, pretend that somehow the system could be made to be fair: what are the first 3 steps you would take?

A quick note for the olds: Swatting is when emergency services are called by someone who hides their identity and falsely claims an incident that requires an immediate and armed response from law enforcement is taking place at an address.  Swatting is a way to harass – and possibly harm – an intended victim by fraudulently provoking a police raid at their location.

During Spring 2018 in Parkland, Florida, local police responded to a call that claimed Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg was being held hostage.  The caller claimed Hogg and his family were being held hostage by someone armed with an AR-15. Police showed up to his house “prepared for a shootout with an armed menace”.  Shortly after arriving at the scene, the responding officers discovered that not only had the caller been lying, but that Hogg was actually out of town at the time.

On social media Hogg downplayed the incident, describing it a poorly-thought-out prank.  Hogg had a reason for playing it cool though – after surviving the slaughter at his school on Valentine’s Day in 2018, he’s been a target for harassment from gun rights activist and conspiracy theorists.  By downplaying the swatting incident and acting like it’s no big deal, Hogg was communicating to swatters that they are wasting their time trying to provoke fear or anguish in him.

Despite how Hogg reacted to the incident publically, swatting is an extremely dangerous act that needs to be taken seriously.  It wastes police resources that might be needed somewhere where a real emergency is taking place, and the so-called prank can even result in death.

In December 2017, a 28 year old was killed by police that were responding to an emergency call.  In a call to 911, a swatter claimed that a man had killed his father and was holding the rest of his family hostage in their home.   When a young man opened the door at the house that was being ‘swatted’, police shot him thinking he was the gunman that had been reported.  He died shortly after that.  Given that the December 2017 swatting death was national news at the time, the person who attempted to swat David Hogg just a few month later knew there was a chance Hogg (or a member of his family) could have been inadvertently shot or injured by police.

Though the specific definition changes by jurisdiction, generally speaking ‘attempted murder’ is when someone has intent to carry out a murder or takes a substantial step towards committing a murder.  Considering the circumstances of the attempted swatting of David Hogg, do you believe the swatter – if he or she were ever identified – could be convicted of attempted murder?  Why or why not?  What other charges might a person face if they were identified as being a person behind a swatting call to police?

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/hogg-family-home-swatting-incident-trnd/index.html