History UsefulNotes / StayingOutOfLegalTrouble

31st Oct '17 9:38:04 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** If a fight ''is'' unavoidable due to having to defend yourself, you can only exercise reasonable force, which is usually defined as force proportionate to the threat at hand. While the definition of "reasonable force" can be nebulous and is often heavily dependent on statutory and case law in the jurisdiction in question (disregarding stand-your-ground laws, which are an entirely different ballgame), the most reliable standard is generally that lethal force is only acceptable if you have a credible immediate threat to life and limb and/or have little or no time or room to escape from the threat; self-defense is ''not'' a defense to NoKillLikeOverkill/DisproportionateRetribution/CoupDeGrace. If you shoot someone who is charging at you with a knife and clearly intends to seriously fuck you up, you have a far better claim to justified use of lethal force than shooting the dude who shoved you and called you a pussy, and depending on the circumstances (e.g., it was clear that you were looking for an excuse to seriously harm and/or kill someone and used a physical provocation as that excuse), murder is a completely possible and quite likely legitimate charge.

to:

** If a fight ''is'' unavoidable due to having to defend yourself, you can only exercise reasonable force, which is usually defined as force proportionate to the threat at hand. While the definition of "reasonable force" can be nebulous and is often heavily dependent on statutory and case law in the jurisdiction in question (disregarding stand-your-ground laws, which are an entirely different ballgame), the most reliable standard is generally that lethal force is only acceptable if you have a credible immediate threat to life and limb and/or have little or no time or room to escape from the threat; self-defense is ''not'' a defense to NoKillLikeOverkill/DisproportionateRetribution/CoupDeGrace.NoKillLikeOverkill[=/=]DisproportionateRetribution[=/=]CoupDeGrace. If you shoot someone who is charging at you with a knife and clearly intends to seriously fuck you up, you have a far better claim to justified use of lethal force than shooting the dude who shoved you and called you a pussy, and depending on the circumstances (e.g., it was clear that you were looking for an excuse to seriously harm and/or kill someone and used a physical provocation as that excuse), murder is a completely possible and quite likely legitimate charge.
31st Oct '17 9:35:46 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** If a fight ''is'' unavoidable due to having to defend yourself, you can only exercise reasonable force, which is usually defined as force proportionate to the threat at hand. That is to say that if someone is actively trying to kill or horribly maim you, pulling out all the stops to get away is acceptable. Notice how it's a matter of being able to get away; if you decide to turn the tables on them when you could easily escape, you can and ''will'' be held liable for anything that happens. The law makes a very clear distinction between punching someone a few times in self-defense and beating them half to death, between stabbing someone who is attacking you and hacking away at them, and between shooting someone who is charging at you with a weapon and a clear intent to do serious harm and emptying an entire clip into someone who merely threatened you (except in states with stand-your-ground laws, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment we will not go there]]). Just because you were violently attacked by someone does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want in return, and if you treat threats to your person in such a manner, chances are good that you'll be facing murder or manslaughter charges.

to:

** If a fight ''is'' unavoidable due to having to defend yourself, you can only exercise reasonable force, which is usually defined as force proportionate to the threat at hand. That While the definition of "reasonable force" can be nebulous and is to say often heavily dependent on statutory and case law in the jurisdiction in question (disregarding stand-your-ground laws, which are an entirely different ballgame), the most reliable standard is generally that if someone lethal force is actively trying to kill or horribly maim you, pulling out all the stops to get away is acceptable. Notice how it's a matter of being able to get away; only acceptable if you decide have a credible immediate threat to turn life and limb and/or have little or no time or room to escape from the tables on them when you could easily escape, you can and ''will'' be held liable for anything that happens. The law makes a very clear distinction between punching someone a few times in threat; self-defense and beating them half is ''not'' a defense to death, between stabbing someone who is attacking NoKillLikeOverkill/DisproportionateRetribution/CoupDeGrace. If you and hacking away at them, and between shooting shoot someone who is charging at you with a weapon knife and clearly intends to seriously fuck you up, you have a far better claim to justified use of lethal force than shooting the dude who shoved you and called you a pussy, and depending on the circumstances (e.g., it was clear intent to do serious harm and emptying an entire clip into someone who merely threatened you (except in states with stand-your-ground laws, but [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment we will not go there]]). Just because that you were violently attacked by looking for an excuse to seriously harm and/or kill someone does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want in return, and if you treat threats to your person in such used a manner, chances are good physical provocation as that you'll be facing excuse), murder or manslaughter charges.is a completely possible and quite likely legitimate charge.
29th Sep '17 6:49:10 PM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As an additional note, anyone who is in the US should absolutely ''not'' bring loli/shota into certain countries (most notably Canada) under any circumstances, even if they're not actually viewing it (e.g. artists delivering commissions or selling pieces at conventions, erotica collectors, academics, etc). Canada, in particular, notably does ''not'' accept Really700YearsOld as a defense for loli/shota (which is treated as child pornography up there); generally, the rule goes that it doesn't matter if the character actually is a millennia-old demon princess who just happens to look like a prepubescent child. In Canada, if a person unfamiliar with the source material would have no reason to not assume that the character was a small child, it is legally considered child pornography.

to:

** As an additional note, anyone who is in the US should absolutely ''not'' bring loli/shota into certain countries (most notably Canada) under any circumstances, even if they're not actually viewing it (e.g. artists delivering commissions or selling pieces at conventions, erotica collectors, academics, etc). Canada, in particular, notably does ''not'' accept Really700YearsOld as a defense for loli/shota (which is treated as child pornography up there); generally, in Canada, the rule goes that it doesn't matter if the character actually is a millennia-old demon princess who just happens to look like a prepubescent child. In Canada, child, and if a person unfamiliar with the source material would have no reason to not assume that the character was a small child, it is legally considered child pornography.
29th Sep '17 12:09:25 PM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** As an additional note, anyone who is in the US should absolutely ''not'' bring loli/shota into certain countries (most notably Canada) under any circumstances, even if they're not actually viewing it (e.g. artists delivering commissions or selling pieces at conventions, erotica collectors, academics, etc). Canada, in particular, notably does ''not'' accept Really700YearsOld as a defense for loli/shota (which is treated as child pornography up there); generally, the rule goes that it doesn't matter if the character actually is a millennia-old demon princess who just happens to look like a prepubescent child. In Canada, if a person unfamiliar with the source material would have no reason to not assume that the character was a small child, it is legally considered child pornography.
12th Aug '17 3:19:28 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Within the US, {{lolicon}} and {{shotacon}} type material exists in a legal gray area. There are arguable defenses under the First Amendment (the right to free speech) as long as ''no actual child or anything looking like an actual child'' is depicted in any way, ''and'' most of the (rare) prosecutions for it have been leveled at creators or people bringing the material across borders/importing it/maintaining massive collections of it, as opposed to occasional readers/viewers/players - but people ''have'' been prosecuted for it, and even if you successfully fight the charges with a First Amendment defense, you will ''still'' be [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion vilified as a]] [[PaedoHunt pedophile]] no matter what your actual reasons may be for your interest. If you have an interest in this sort of fiction, it's best to be very discreet about said interest, to not maintain large collections or create/import it, and to possibly retain a First Amendment attorney if you have a legitimate reason to work with/collect a lot of it (e.g. you're teaching a college course on human sexuality in Japan, you're critically analyzing it for a publication or dissertation as opposed to using it as personal porn, you're a manga importer or comic book shop owner that chooses to sell questionable titles). Obviously, while this isn't legal trouble, don't post it on this site unless you want to be banned.

to:

* Within the US, {{lolicon}} and {{shotacon}} LoliconAndShotacon type material exists in a legal gray area. There are arguable defenses under the First Amendment (the right to free speech) as long as ''no actual child or anything looking like an actual child'' is depicted in any way, ''and'' most of the (rare) prosecutions for it have been leveled at creators or people bringing the material across borders/importing it/maintaining massive collections of it, as opposed to occasional readers/viewers/players - but people ''have'' been prosecuted for it, and even if you successfully fight the charges with a First Amendment defense, you will ''still'' be [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion vilified as a]] [[PaedoHunt pedophile]] no matter what your actual reasons may be for your interest. If you have an interest in this sort of fiction, it's best to be very discreet about said interest, to not maintain large collections or create/import it, and to possibly retain a First Amendment attorney if you have a legitimate reason to work with/collect a lot of it (e.g. you're teaching a college course on human sexuality in Japan, you're critically analyzing it for a publication or dissertation as opposed to using it as personal porn, you're a manga importer or comic book shop owner that chooses to sell questionable titles). Obviously, while this isn't legal trouble, don't post it on this site unless you want to be banned.
21st Oct '16 5:15:27 PM Berrenta
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# The majority of arrests in the criminal system are ''not'' for intentional murders, sexual assaults, dramatic robberies and frauds, and all of the other things watching most [[PoliceProcedural police shows]] or [[SpotlightFallacy the news]] might make one think. [[HanlonsRazor The great majority are for]] [[IdiotBall bad decisions or momentary stupidity]] on behalf of the criminal, which the point of this article is to help you avoid making. Others actually are for definitely serious crimes (DomesticAbuse or sexual assault) in cases where people do not understand that their behavior is abusive and wrong in a culture that encourages and excuses such behavior, or [[TheyJustDidntCare don't care]] that their behavior is harming another person. This article will also help you understand what defines those crimes.

to:

# The majority of arrests in the criminal system are ''not'' for intentional murders, sexual assaults, dramatic robberies and frauds, and all of the other things watching most [[PoliceProcedural police shows]] or [[SpotlightFallacy the news]] might make one think. [[HanlonsRazor The great majority are for]] [[IdiotBall bad decisions or momentary stupidity]] on behalf of the criminal, which the point of this article is to help you avoid making. Others actually are for definitely serious crimes (DomesticAbuse or sexual assault) in cases where people do not understand that their behavior is abusive and wrong in a culture that encourages and excuses such behavior, or [[TheyJustDidntCare don't care]] care that their behavior is harming another person. This article will also help you understand what defines those crimes.
17th Sep '16 11:04:20 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** If leaving a bad review, don't make anything up or use hyperbole that could be taken at face value. Stick to the facts of the situation - if your review includes false claims or accusations or engages in hyperbole that a reasonable person may actually believe is factual, you ''can'' be sued for it. If the service or goods provided really were that terrible and you weren't being an unreasonable asshole, the truth should speak for itself. If you were given bad service because you were a dick and you leave an angry review that claims that you were served dirty or rotten food or addressed with derogatory slurs when you really weren't, the business has every right to sue you for trying to tarnish their good name out of spite.
14th Sep '16 9:00:06 AM HasturHasturHastur
Is there an issue? Send a Message


#Slander, libel, and defamation suits are also quite common. If you know that a harmful or inflammatory allegation is objectively false or do not know whether it is true or false but also do not care and go forward with it anyways, the victim can sue you if your actions caused them actual harm. Public figures have a higher standard of proof due to protections for parody and satire, but it has to actually have satiric value; "it's social commentary" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for genuinely defamatory statements, and neither is, [[JustJokingJustification "Aw, I was just kidding!"]]. Not making harmful statements of objective fact that are untrue will protect you from the vast majority of these suits outside of the occasional SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), but most states have anti-SLAPP tools that make dismissing them a relatively painless process.

to:

#Slander, libel, and defamation suits are also quite common. If you know that a harmful or inflammatory allegation is objectively false or do not know whether it is true or false but also do not care and go forward with it anyways, the victim you can sue you if your actions caused them actual harm. Public figures have a higher standard of proof due to protections be sued for parody and satire, but it has to actually have satiric value; "it's social commentary" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for genuinely defamatory statements, and neither is, [[JustJokingJustification "Aw, I was just kidding!"]]. Not making harmful statements of objective fact that are untrue will protect you from the vast majority of these suits outside of the occasional SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), but most states have anti-SLAPP tools that make dismissing them a relatively painless process.it.



** Don't get into physical fights.

to:

** Don't get into physical fights. If defending yourself is unavoidable, do not go overboard



** If you're in a sticky situation with taxes, ''do not'' use tax protestor arguments when stating your case. No matter what you may think, your interpretation of the law is not new, and they have almost certainly heard your argument before and are more than prepared to shoot it down. Also, it should be mentioned that even ''trying'' to use tax protestor arguments has a high likelihood of netting contempt charges and hefty fines; time and time again, it has been proven that if the IRS was previously cordial and understanding with you, busting out tax protestor arguments will make them jump for the boxing gloves and come after you with a vengeance. This goes at least quadruple for sovereign citizen tactics; employ these, and the most likely outcome is a prison sentence[[note]]As a matter of fact, even using the terms "sovereign citizen" or "free man" when filing improper returns will get you slapped with an automatic $5,000 fine by the IRS, and depending on what other language you use or if the incorrect amount being claimed is particularly ridiculous, you may be looking at far more massive fines or criminal prosecution. The IRS does ''not'' fuck around when you piss them off, and they ''really'' hate sovereigns[[/note]].

to:

** If you're in a sticky situation with taxes, ''do not'' use tax protestor arguments when stating your case. No matter what you may think, your interpretation of the law is not new, and they have almost certainly heard your argument before and are more than prepared to shoot it down. Also, it should be mentioned that even ''trying'' to use tax protestor arguments has a high likelihood of netting contempt charges and hefty fines; time and time again, it has been proven that if the IRS was previously cordial and understanding with you, busting out tax protestor arguments will make them jump for the boxing gloves and come after you with a vengeance. This goes at least quadruple for sovereign citizen tactics; employ these, and the most likely outcome is a prison sentence[[note]]As a matter of fact, even using the terms like "sovereign citizen" or "free man" when filing improper returns will get you slapped with an automatic $5,000 fine by the IRS, and depending on what other language you use or if the incorrect amount being claimed is you're making particularly ridiculous, massive deductions or already have a bad history with them, you may be looking at far more massive fines or criminal prosecution. The IRS does ''not'' fuck around when you piss them off, and they ''really'' hate sovereigns[[/note]].



** Don't make public, accusatory statements about people unless you can back it up or it is obvious opinion (something that cannot be proven true or false). For example, "Bob is in TheMafia" or "Sarah is a child molester" are potential slander or libel as they are objective statements of fact that can be proven false (e.g. if Bob is ''not'' in TheMafia or Sarah does ''not'' molest children, they can sue you). "Bob is fat and ugly" or "Sarah is a bitch" are indeed abusive, but they are not illegal statements because they can't be proven true or false (e.g. there is no objective fact of what "fat and ugly" is or what defines someone as a "bitch").

to:

** Don't make public, accusatory statements about people unless you can back it up or it is obvious opinion (something that cannot be proven true or false). For example, "Bob is in TheMafia" or "Sarah is a child molester" are potential slander or libel as they are objective statements of fact that can be proven false (e.g. if Bob is ''not'' in TheMafia or Sarah does ''not'' molest children, they can sue you). "Bob is fat and ugly" or "Sarah is a bitch" are indeed abusive, but they are not illegal statements because they can't be proven true or false (e.g. there is no objective fact of what "fat and ugly" is or what defines someone as a "bitch"). Public figures have a heightened burden of proof due to protections for parody and satire, but "it's social commentary" and/or "I was joking" are not get-out-of-jail-free cards for genuinely defamatory statements. While it's largely up to a court to decide, it can generally be assumed that if a reasonable person would take it at face value and/or would not have reason to assume that it was in jest, they're going to call bullshit on your claims that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
26th Aug '16 12:16:58 PM DavidDelony
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Do not hit a child. Ever. '''FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.''''' Even if it's "CorporalPunishment"--the law today views that as child abuse. Seriously. Americans can be remarkably protective of children in the first place, so harming children is a way to call official attention to yourself even if you haven't done anything illegal per se. If you're ''caring'' for the children, you better watch yourself--at a minimum you'll lose your job caring for the kid, and if the parents ''knew'' about the hitting--again, even if you ''and'' the parents thought the kid deserved a spanking, it may be sufficient grounds for at least temporary removal of the children from the custody of the parents until such time as the parents have satisfied the state that they are never going to lay hands on their children again.

to:

* ''Do not hit a child. Ever. '''FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.''''' Even if it's "CorporalPunishment"--the law today views that as child abuse. Seriously. Americans can be [[MamaBear remarkably protective protective]] [[PapaWolf of children children]] in the first place, so harming children is a way to call official attention to yourself even if you haven't done anything illegal per se. If you're ''caring'' for the children, you better watch yourself--at a minimum you'll lose your job caring for the kid, and if the parents ''knew'' about the hitting--again, even if you ''and'' the parents thought the kid deserved a spanking, it may be sufficient grounds for at least temporary removal of the children from the custody of the parents until such time as the parents have satisfied the state that they are never going to lay hands on their children again.
9th Aug '16 9:05:48 PM MsChibi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


#Slander, libel, and defamation suits are also quite common. If you know that a harmful or inflammatory allegation is objectively false or do not know whether it is true or false but also do not care and go forward with it anyways, the victim can sue you if your actions caused them actual harm. Public figures have a higher standard of proof due to protections for parody and satire, but it has to actually have satiric value; "it's social commentary" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for genuinely defamatory statements. Not making harmful statements of objective fact that are untrue will protect you from the vast majority of these suits outside of the occasional SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), but most states have anti-SLAPP tools that make dismissing them a relatively painless process.

to:

#Slander, libel, and defamation suits are also quite common. If you know that a harmful or inflammatory allegation is objectively false or do not know whether it is true or false but also do not care and go forward with it anyways, the victim can sue you if your actions caused them actual harm. Public figures have a higher standard of proof due to protections for parody and satire, but it has to actually have satiric value; "it's social commentary" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for genuinely defamatory statements.statements, and neither is, [[JustJokingJustification "Aw, I was just kidding!"]]. Not making harmful statements of objective fact that are untrue will protect you from the vast majority of these suits outside of the occasional SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), but most states have anti-SLAPP tools that make dismissing them a relatively painless process.
This list shows the last 10 events of 125. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.StayingOutOfLegalTrouble