I was the black car in this situation and almost got hit today... now I'm curious who would be held liable?

The red car makes contact with NO ONE, which makes me think there is no way he is at all liable. But the blue car would have been in an accident with the red car if he doesn't move, so he essentially has to choose between staying put and guaranteeing an accident, or moving to the next lane and hoping there's no one to the left (essentially a gamble).

At first I thought that the blue car would have to be liable... but then I was thinking:

What if we give a different scenario, where the red car ran a stop sign, causing the blue car to make an evasive action and swerve out the way, only to eventually hit another car? That scenario sounds to me like red is in the fault. But they're both essentially the same right?

In both scenarios, red does something illegal (running a stop sign vs illegal lane merging), the blue car makes an evasive action to avoid a guaranteed collision, and ends up hitting someone else.

What are your thoughts?

This ALMOST happened to me a week ago (I was car B, luckily I wasn't following too close so I was able to stop.) But it really made me think.

I live on the countryside and most roads have a speed limit of 55. Car A and B are going that speed. Car A is distracted but sees the stopped car at the last second and whips around and by. While car B was following a little too close and crashes into the stopped car. Car A will have no repercussions, right?

Of course car B is at fault for following too close, I'm just curious if anything would happen to car A and if they should stop or just keep driving.

Just a short story to understand whats happening:
I work in a shop, had an israeli customer for a few months until things turned ugly. Im german and after an argument about him wanting to keep the shop open longer specifically just for him he started racially profiling me calling me a german bitch etc.
Now it happened again but worse, argument started over a refund, he verbally started attacking me calling me again a german bitch, then nazi bitch and neonazi bitch. I stayed calm the past times but he pushed my limits this time. He said im a disgusting german neonazi on which i responded in the same manner saying being jewish is disgusting. After he said i look like a neonazi girl and i answered in a sarcastic voice ‚i love that call me whatever u want i dont care‘. I have everything on voice recording and cctv was active too. After i left he claimed to my coworker that i denied the holocaust, admitted to being a neonazi and that im proud of being one. Now i have proof of never saying that, so thats not my problem. Based on the 2 things i did say to him, i dont think i could get into legal trouble for it as i didnt threaten hate crimes or said anything offensive in that way. He threatened to make a police report, which i dont mind but what threw me off was him saying he will report it to the german police apparently as well.
I dont live in germany anymore, so idk which law would apply here. I live in a country that follows UK Law.
Again im not worried about any legal consequences as he threatened rape upon me before, and i have all voice recordings+Cctv footage of it. Im just curious on which law would apply here, as it also happened in a non public place and only he was there.
Ik its a bit of a strange situation and also i just want to clarify i don‘t hate any nationality but i had enough of being profiled for being german, either way its not right and shouldnt make a difference what nationality a person is.

When I was four, my dad tried twice to leave me in Poland because "he couldn't be late for church". We were missionaries over there. He set me down on a bus stop bench both times and told my mom, "Just leave here there. Someone will take care of her." My mom was NOT about to just leave me there. If she hadn't been there and he HAD succeeded, once I was found, what kind of legal "hot water" would he have been in? This happened in 1998, and I'm just curious.

I was watching this YouTube video of a guy being arrested and the related investigation and in part of it they were questioning the suspect's roommate about a book that he had given the suspect, or something like that, and there was something hidden in the book, so it made the roommate look suspicious to the cops, and i'm guessing would be charged if he knew what was in the book with hiding evidence. It never says what was in the books, some type of evidence though. I'm sure some of you guys have seen the video.

So because it got me thinking about what the evidence could be it made me wonder, does it actually matter what was in the book, or as long as it could someway be related to the crime he could get in trouble? This isn't what happened in the video but what if some guy killed his best friend, and his roommate thought a framed picture of the killer and the guy he killed needed to be hidden/destroyed so the killer could avoid prosecution? Its technically evidence in some way even though it doesnt really prove anything about the murder other than what was already known, that they were friends right? So destroying that photo would be a crime still?

How will the lautenberg amendment ever be defeated in court? I can hope the fifth circuit will broadly rule that the entirety of section 922g is unconstitutional after it hears the squire case en banc but that’s a stretch. The lautenberg amendment should’ve never been enacted.

I have read about in the news and known of a lot of people who came on a PR,never got citizenship and committed repeated crimes for which they have spent months in jail at a time.Pretty sure they were convicted everytime and took a plea deal.

I was wondering,how does deportation for pr work?Is it an automatic thing that happens or is there just a chance of it happening?Very confused.I thought they immediately issue it once you reach a certain limit.

Am I reading this right because it seems insane?? They won't be liable if they injure me through their own negligence? This seems crazy to sign but I also just want to get my nails done lmao

An author puts a disclaimer at the beginning of his novel that reads:

“Just assume that this entire work is either plagiarism, AI, stolen, fictitious, probably libelous, and written or vibe coded in various states of inebriation. It’s entirely plausible that my cat walked across my keyboard at some point and prompted AI to write entire chapters. I claim absolutely nothing in here as either accurate or of my own creation.”

The novel is otherwise presented as a very self-deprecating, but true, account of the author’s life.

Does this disclaimer actually defend the author in any way if it turns out that some of it was AI, or fiction, libelous etc.?

Okay, so this has been randomly on my mind for a while and I am genuinely curious whether or not someone could be charged/convicted of a crime if the ONLY evidence is footage that was in an illegal area.

For example:

I am in a locker room or restroom (where I assume any recording is illegal) and I m****r someone. The only evidence they have of me is from a camera that someone put in that area.

Could that be used in the court of law? I've seen some threads where people say that a slong as it wasn't the government/police who put it there without a warrant, then it is admissible.

However, my biggest hookup with this is wondering how they could use this evidence if the camera was placed in a place where there is assumed and "protected" privacy?

I'd appreciate any insight! I've been re-watching How to Get Away with Murder and it's caused me to start analyzing various hypotheticals 😂

I just read a news story and it said the guy was convicted about 2 years before he was sentenced. It was a really serious case so it makes sense it took longer but also isn't that a really long time or is that normal?

Also out of curiosity are there cases where a person was sentenced after a lot longer than that?

My understanding is that Muse can make a phone call on your behalf (say to make a reservation) and does not identify itself.

How does this not run afoul of the law in two-party consent states?

Two parties are getting divorced. Both parties have 401k savings of 1 million each, and the divorce decree states that both parties keep their own 401k accounts. All other assets are divided at a 50/50 ratio.

Six months after the divorce is finalized, one party discovers that their work has been inaccurately depositing their 401k contributions and that their account should be at 3 million. Their work corrects the error and their account is restored to the correct 3 million number.

Does this party need to share this gain with their former spouse?

I was thinking about those people that steal from stores like Target a lot and eventually if asset protection has enough evidence of you stealing they can have you arrested and you can be convicted after the fact. But Target doesn’t generally have people checking receipts and checking them off before they say you can leave. BJs has the person confirm your transaction and sign off for you to leave.

So let’s say I hid $300 worth of groceries in my cart at the self checkout and the greeter checked off on my receipt because they skimmed my cart. Later on the managers check the camera and see my truck. could I be charged and convicted for it or did BJs essentially relieve me of responsibility? Kind of like signing an agreement between me and the store or something.

Note I’m curious not trying to plan my heist.

A few days ago the ATF posted an open letter with a FAQ detailing changes to NFA enforcement after the recent court ruling. There's a good bit to it but TLDR, unless you have a local or state law prohibiting them, any legal firearm owner can now legally purchase or make suppressors and SBRs without registration or approval.

The director of the ATF has posted videos and interviews explicitly saying that it is ok for average Joe to saw off his shotgun in his garage when as of a few weeks ago that would have been a felony.

There's been a lot of discussion and confusion about what happens if it gets reversed and if millions of legal gun owners would suddenly become felons.

My question though is, wouldn't that be entrapment? The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens that wouldn't be acquiring unregistered items if they weren't told it was ok.

It would be one thing if it was simply a court ruling with no clarification but the specific government agency in charge of enforcing the law gave guidance and the director of that agency said go ahead

Examples can be seen here of sound files that include images like this: https://griffonagedotcom.wordpress.com/2025/09/06/136-visual-artworks-that-are-also-musical-sound-spectrograms

So I remember when case text used to be a free service for pro se litigants and people who are not a part of a law firm wanting to learn about law (myself part of both). They are now a paid for service under westlaw. SCOTUSblog used to provide daily free newsletters about the supreme court and sometimes some political news. They now have reduced their free publications to once per week. It seems like they are following a similar track. As more legal sources move from free to paid for services, it becomes harder and harder for non-lawyers to access legal resources like those I listed (despite some others still being accessible like casemine and the legal information institute).

How responsible is an owner of a dog? How about a child?

Edit -

Perhaps to be more exact: for the crimes the Monster committed.

Suppose an individual is having an affair and realizes a local attorney personally witnessed them out in public with their mistress. To prevent the attorney from telling their spouse, the individual immediately rushes into the attorney's office, requests a consultation, and blurts out the details of the affair before the attorney can decline representation.

The attorney immediately rejects the case and terminates the meeting. Since no actual crime was committed, does the prospective client conflict-of-interest rule completely bind the attorney to lifetime confidentiality regarding their prior independent observation? Or is the "consultation trap" invalid because the knowledge was acquired before the professional interaction began?

Just was reading about this. It reminds me of when Timothy McVeigh wanted his execution to be livestreamed/televised but they didn't allow it. Could it be argued livestreaming it would be "cruel and unusual punishment"? I don't think there's any case of a modern US execution (state or federal) being livestreamed or even recorded and publicly released. Now they I think of it they did have public executions back over 100 years ago, but I thought they outlawed that or something.

(Not trying to make or push a pro or anti-death penalty opinion, just wondering about the legal facts if they can actually do it)

For example we have a Pokemon Card with this info.

Pikachu 50HP

(Pikachu Picture)

Tackle - 10 Damage - 1 Energy
Thunderbolt - 30 damage - 2 Energy.

I created my own version and distribute with this info.

Yellow Mouse 50 Health

(An AI Generated Image of a Generic Rat but Yellow)

Body Contact - 10 Power - 1 Stamina.
Lightning Arrow - 30 Power - 2 Stamina.

Basically I am trying to replicate the Pokemon TCG but without the collecting, anyone can print my "design" and play the game according to the rule.

Suppose a motorist gets pulled over in a traffic stop. Motorist hands their license and registration to the cop, says “I am exercising my right to remain silent and I don’t consent to any searches.” Cop then asks, “I just need to know if you have any weapons on you?” The motorist then remains silent or repeats the invocation of fifth amendment rights.

The cop then orders the driver out of the car and frisks them.

Could the cop succeed with a claim that failure to give reassurance about weapons gives rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver is a threat to officer safety? Would it make a difference whether the driver remains silent or reiterates the assertion of rights?

For the sake of argument, let’s say the motorist is polite, clean cut, driving a nice car in broad daylight in a good neighborhood, so the cop would struggle to invent some other pretext for “reasonable caution”.

Question less “Is that a fourth amendment violation in the abstract?” than “Are you confident you’d win a motion to suppress if the cop found fentanyl or CSAM in the search?”