On January 04 2016 22:26 SoSexy wrote: Is it true that in the US party cups are red so that the Police can't tell what one is drinking? So no problem with underage alcohol consumption etc
They aren't red so cops can't tell what you're drinking. Solo cups, the main one you're referring too are probably most popular in red or at least more commonly available. If you're underage and cops bust a party you're at, the red cup won't stop you from getting a minor consumption.
When you see someone brown bagging it (keeping a bottle in a brown paper bag) or some one is using a beer koozie at a public beach where drinking is not allowed, that is supposedly to stop cops from looking into the contents of the can/bottle. I believe it has to do with a cop not being able to check what is in the bag/koozie unless you give them cause to do so (stumbling, vomiting, being a drunk ass.)
It is all about context, if you're at a house party that the cops bust and you're holding a cup they'll likely check if/what you're drinking regardless of the cup and cite you accordingly.
***Not saying with 100% certainty that a bag or a koozie stops cops from doing shit.
On January 04 2016 23:04 ThomasjServo wrote: a public beach where drinking is not allowed
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHahh
Why does the US has such ridiculous alcohol laws? 21 drinking age, no drinking in public, i don't understand the problem.
Most of it has its roots in Prohibition and to a certain extent puritan influence or rather temperance. I'd suppose it is just more difficult to change now and not much will to do it. The shitty part is that the gov't tied the age to funding for maintaining highways, so a state can change the drinking age if they don't want to get a check from the federal government to maintain roads in a nutshell.
That being said regarding public consumption and even the drinking age there are shades of grey. Wisconsin and other states parents can buy their child of fourteen or older a drink in a bar, and in Texas a popular rumor I've heard is that if you are under a .08 BAC you can have a beer while behind the wheel. I can't confirm that with a quick google at work though.
On January 04 2016 23:16 SoSexy wrote: Damn, I've been told lies.
Well it's true for those reality shows and for other stuff that's recorded. By placing the drink in the red cup people looking at the recording/photo can't prove that there was alcohol in the cup as opposed to just holding a beer or cocktail.
Assuming you are a victim of a crime in progress (let's say, mugging). A cop saw the incident and the mugger got your bag or wallet. The police couldve chase him but he chose not to (fear, laziness or just doesnt give a fuck). Can you like, press charges or something? Was thinking about it earlier.
On January 05 2016 23:40 icystorage wrote: Assuming you are a victim of a crime in progress (let's say, mugging). A cop saw the incident and the mugger got your bag or wallet. The police couldve chase him but he chose not to (fear, laziness or just doesnt give a fuck). Can you like, press charges or something? Was thinking about it earlier.
In the US, the answer is no; the Supreme Court has held that citizens do not maintain any vested property interest in the affirmative actions of police, so there'd be no basis for a suit.
On January 05 2016 23:40 icystorage wrote: Assuming you are a victim of a crime in progress (let's say, mugging). A cop saw the incident and the mugger got your bag or wallet. The police couldve chase him but he chose not to (fear, laziness or just doesnt give a fuck). Can you like, press charges or something? Was thinking about it earlier.
In the US, the answer is no; the Supreme Court has held that citizens do not maintain any vested property interest in the affirmative actions of police, so there'd be no basis for a suit.
That makes sense too or else citizens could just accuse cops of not trying *hard enough* in nearly any case that isn't solved or fixed to the citizen's perfect liking. It can become a slippery slope quite easily.
On January 05 2016 23:40 icystorage wrote: Assuming you are a victim of a crime in progress (let's say, mugging). A cop saw the incident and the mugger got your bag or wallet. The police couldve chase him but he chose not to (fear, laziness or just doesnt give a fuck). Can you like, press charges or something? Was thinking about it earlier.
In the US, the answer is no; the Supreme Court has held that citizens do not maintain any vested property interest in the affirmative actions of police, so there'd be no basis for a suit.
That makes sense too or else citizens could just accuse cops of not trying *hard enough* in nearly any case that isn't solved or fixed to the citizen's perfect liking. It can become a slippery slope quite easily.
In France, I think you can press charges if the cop stays passive during the mugging (unless his intervention would clearly put him or others at risk), or if he gives chase instead of coming to check on you when the mugger runs away (duty to rescue). If you are injured and he leaves you to chase, he's in trouble.
If you are in danger, anyone -cop or not- not helping could face up to 5 years and 100 000€ fine in France. Wikipedia gives slightly different versions on the French page, only about French law, and the English one, which has a more global approach (I only skimmed through both).
On January 06 2016 02:06 AbouSV wrote: If you are in danger, anyone -cop or not- not helping could face up to 5 years and 100 000€ fine in France. Wikipedia gives slightly different versions on the French page, only about French law, and the English one, which has a more global approach (I only skimmed through both).
I could see a cop not helping you at all as one thing, but another layman not helping? That could make matters worse, and they're not professionally trained to handle emergency situations.
On January 06 2016 02:06 AbouSV wrote: If you are in danger, anyone -cop or not- not helping could face up to 5 years and 100 000€ fine in France. Wikipedia gives slightly different versions on the French page, only about French law, and the English one, which has a more global approach (I only skimmed through both).
I could see a cop not helping you at all as one thing, but another layman not helping? That could make matters worse, and they're not professionally trained to handle emergency situations.
Those laws are usually pretty carefully formulated to cover those situations reasonably well.
Basically, if you notice someone coughing blood on the sidewalk, it is your duty to react and try to aid in a reasonable way. Usually that means asking them if they are fine and/or calling an ambulance. If you are not capable of helping, your duty is to try to contact someone who is, instead of walking on and ignoring the situation.
Similarly, the law probably wouldn't expect you to fight three muggers with your bare hands, but instead expect you to call the cops.
Also, bodily harm is usually placed far above property in these cases. So you don't have to put yourself or anyone else in even the slightest possible danger to protect someones wallet from a mugger. But if someone gets beaten to a pulp and you notice it, you can't just walk on as if nothing happened (Though it would probably be hard to prove that you noticed)
On January 06 2016 02:06 AbouSV wrote: If you are in danger, anyone -cop or not- not helping could face up to 5 years and 100 000€ fine in France. Wikipedia gives slightly different versions on the French page, only about French law, and the English one, which has a more global approach (I only skimmed through both).
I could see a cop not helping you at all as one thing, but another layman not helping? That could make matters worse, and they're not professionally trained to handle emergency situations.
Those laws are usually pretty carefully formulated to cover those situations reasonably well.
Basically, if you notice someone coughing blood on the sidewalk, it is your duty to react and try to aid in a reasonable way. Usually that means asking them if they are fine and/or calling an ambulance. If you are not capable of helping, your duty is to try to contact someone who is, instead of walking on and ignoring the situation.
Similarly, the law probably wouldn't expect you to fight three muggers with your bare hands, but instead expect you to call the cops.
Also, bodily harm is usually placed far above property in these cases. So you don't have to put yourself or anyone else in even the slightest possible danger to protect someones wallet from a mugger. But if someone gets beaten to a pulp and you notice it, you can't just walk on as if nothing happened (Though it would probably be hard to prove that you noticed)
On January 06 2016 02:06 AbouSV wrote: If you are in danger, anyone -cop or not- not helping could face up to 5 years and 100 000€ fine in France. Wikipedia gives slightly different versions on the French page, only about French law, and the English one, which has a more global approach (I only skimmed through both).
I could see a cop not helping you at all as one thing, but another layman not helping? That could make matters worse, and they're not professionally trained to handle emergency situations.
Lack of assistance towards someone in danger in France can only be held if the person does not risk his/her life by helping the person in danger. From the Code Pénal :
Quiconque pouvant empêcher par son action immédiate, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, soit un crime, soit un délit contre l'intégrité corporelle de la personne s'abstient volontairement de le faire est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende.
Sera puni des mêmes peines quiconque s'abstient volontairement de porter à une personne en péril l'assistance que, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, il pouvait lui prêter soit par son action personnelle, soit en provoquant un secours.
I hope this translation is understandable : "Whoever could prevent by his/her immediate action, without any risks for him/her or for others, either a crime, or an attack against someone's corporal integrity, and voluntarily doesn't, is punished by five years of jail and a 75,000€ fine. Whoever voluntarily refrains from giving to someone in jeopardy the help he/she, without risks for him/her or others, could give either by his/her personal action or by calling to rescue, will suffer the same sentence."
So yeah, in real life this essentially applies to doctors/nurses/paramedical occupations, as even the cop could argue that the mugger(s) could have firearms on them.
In the US the police are held to have absolutely no legal obligation to help you, even if you called the police and they're currently in the process of answering that call. The case where that was decided was horrifying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
On January 06 2016 05:12 KwarK wrote: In the US the police are held to have absolutely no legal obligation to help you, even if you called the police and they're currently in the process of answering that call. The case where that was decided was horrifying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/P2nEbIj.png)
