Are policemen immune from speed limit laws ?
Answers:
No, they are not immune from the speed laws. I know what you are thinking; every time you see a police officer, you feel that they are speeding. Well, they probably are. If I call a cop for an emergency, I want him here right now. Maybe when you call a cop, you want him to drive the speed limit. That certainly is your prerogative. And no, they don't always have to drive with lights and siren when they are responding to an emergency.
Na. Just immune from doing their job.
On the Dukes of Hazzard they are
They are not immune from the laws, but obviously have the freedom.
not at all, if they are catching a criminal or someone else doing something wrong they might have to if the person is speeding.
ONLY WHEN IN PURSUIT OR EN ROUTE TO AN EMERGENCY.
policemen should be examples for civilians. but during emergencies, they need to use fast track - they can't be slower than thieves!
no they must obey all traffic laws unless on official duties require speeding
If the police drove at the speed limit, who would pass them?
there would be massive traffic jams on the highway
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Do police have the right to keep the car?
ok well police found estacy at his house. no drugs was found in car, yet they took his car anyways. they said they cant return it because it's gonna be use as "evidence"
Answers:
If they have reason to believe that the car was used in the transportation and/or sale of illegal narcotics, or was obtained with proceeds from illegal narcotics, they can seize it. They can seize all assets of illegal narcotics transactions. For the poster who blamed this on Bush, not to defend Bush, but it has pretty much always been like that. The Bush administration did not enact these laws, they were enacted long before Bush took office.
This is possible, depending on why the car is being held for evidence.
It also depends on the parameters of the search warrant and where the car was at the time - in a garage, in the driveway, on the street.
It's really a question for a lawyer, which I would hope your friend has by now.
Anytime they find illegal drugs, they can confiscate the car - and the house.
Be glad they just took the car. When they do the forensic examination of the car, they will, no doubt, find drug residue inside of it.
Whoever this guy is, he needs to find a new way to have fun and leave the drugs to the dopers and junkies...unless he is one.
This is Bush's America; 'the man' can do what he wants when he wants and why he wants.
U guys crack me up... "found estacy in the house. no drugs was found in the car"... OK. ... Ecstasy was found in the house, but no drugs were found in the car. Now that we have the spelling and stuff right... Yes the car is being gone over with a fine tooth comb for evidence of drugs being in the car at some time in the past. Actually the police can keep the car till after a trial has been held... U play U pay... I'm guessing your friend didn't own a home because under certain circumstances that might have actually became State property!
Yeup. they sure do.
Answers:
If they have reason to believe that the car was used in the transportation and/or sale of illegal narcotics, or was obtained with proceeds from illegal narcotics, they can seize it. They can seize all assets of illegal narcotics transactions. For the poster who blamed this on Bush, not to defend Bush, but it has pretty much always been like that. The Bush administration did not enact these laws, they were enacted long before Bush took office.
This is possible, depending on why the car is being held for evidence.
It also depends on the parameters of the search warrant and where the car was at the time - in a garage, in the driveway, on the street.
It's really a question for a lawyer, which I would hope your friend has by now.
Anytime they find illegal drugs, they can confiscate the car - and the house.
Be glad they just took the car. When they do the forensic examination of the car, they will, no doubt, find drug residue inside of it.
Whoever this guy is, he needs to find a new way to have fun and leave the drugs to the dopers and junkies...unless he is one.
This is Bush's America; 'the man' can do what he wants when he wants and why he wants.
U guys crack me up... "found estacy in the house. no drugs was found in the car"... OK. ... Ecstasy was found in the house, but no drugs were found in the car. Now that we have the spelling and stuff right... Yes the car is being gone over with a fine tooth comb for evidence of drugs being in the car at some time in the past. Actually the police can keep the car till after a trial has been held... U play U pay... I'm guessing your friend didn't own a home because under certain circumstances that might have actually became State property!
Yeup. they sure do.
Do PETA members disavow all prescription medications?
They have to, since a bunch of them are developed based on animal testing. They would never be so hypocritical to take advantage of something that they despise, would they?
Answers:
While I am shocked you didn't throw some liberal blame in there, I happen to agree with you. The head of PETA, don't remember her name, is a diabetic who regularly takes insulin shots and guess where that insulin comes from? Most of it comes from animals, either pigs or cows.
What's you beef with PETA anyway? They are for treating animals humanely, a noble aspiration.
Did one of them steal your girlfriend?
Most meds are tested on humans so they do allow most
Of course not, aspirin comes from a tree and penicillin comes from a mold. Millions of other drugs come from such other diverse places.
What is this thing thing have for PETA?
Medicines aren't tested on animals anymore thanks in part to organizations like PETA. Same thing for worthless consumables like Hairpspray and Lipstick - which if anyone buys any I hope they get the cruelty free not tested on animals kind. What do you need to keep testing hairspray on animals eyes for anymore?! PETA may have a radical side to it but in general they good in creating awareness and changing norms of animal abuse.
So you don't like PETA. Here's an idea - don't join them. Otherwise, stop obsessing over them. They aren't hurting you.
Answers:
While I am shocked you didn't throw some liberal blame in there, I happen to agree with you. The head of PETA, don't remember her name, is a diabetic who regularly takes insulin shots and guess where that insulin comes from? Most of it comes from animals, either pigs or cows.
What's you beef with PETA anyway? They are for treating animals humanely, a noble aspiration.
Did one of them steal your girlfriend?
Most meds are tested on humans so they do allow most
Of course not, aspirin comes from a tree and penicillin comes from a mold. Millions of other drugs come from such other diverse places.
What is this thing thing have for PETA?
Medicines aren't tested on animals anymore thanks in part to organizations like PETA. Same thing for worthless consumables like Hairpspray and Lipstick - which if anyone buys any I hope they get the cruelty free not tested on animals kind. What do you need to keep testing hairspray on animals eyes for anymore?! PETA may have a radical side to it but in general they good in creating awareness and changing norms of animal abuse.
So you don't like PETA. Here's an idea - don't join them. Otherwise, stop obsessing over them. They aren't hurting you.
Do people really think there is a constitutional right to an abortion?
can somebody try to explain to me how there is a constitutional right to an abortion and if there is why i can't do drugs in my own home. Thank you
Answers:
I don't think the others who have answered are getting your point. Let me try. If, as the Supremes have said, a woman has the right to an abortion because of the implied right to privacy, then why not permit abberant behavior of all sorts and claim it is protected by the implied right to privacy. In that you have a logical argument.
The most amazing part of the Roe decision was that there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either. Their is a right to being secure in your person and papers but that is specifically limited to requiring law enforcement personnel to have search warrants or probable cause before searching you or examining your papers. How that was construed to mean you have a right to privacy is another stretch.
To answer one of the other people who responded questioning why people can bother you with their religion, we have freedom of religion we do not have freedom from religion. We also have freedom of speech we don't have freedom from speech. They have a right to preach, you have the right to preach back, not listen or otherwise go about your business.
.
i think so thats why the Supreme court is involved in the whole thing
I wanna know where it also says people have the right to push their religious beliefs on others...
Abortion is legal. Therefore, women have the right to choose to have one.
Drugs are illegal. Therefore, people do not have the right to break the law.
Pretty simple.
They think that because the Liberals have done a masterful job of framing it that way. They have a law (Roe V. Wade) that made it legal. It was passed in the Supreme Court on a 5 to 4 vote that was later to be found fraudulent in the facts department. Just they think they have a right not to be offended or to healthcare or a myriad of other non-constitutional rights.
The federal law says drugs are not legal so that is why you can't do them.
You can call it clump of cells, fetus, zygote,... whatever, it is still a form of human life being killed you stupid w*****!
Btw, I'm atheist. i don't need god to tell me you are a psychopath for killing your child.
Abortion is only legal because it is feasible. That might change in the future. As far as drugs are concerned, maybe they will be legal in the future as well. In my opinion abortion is no where near constitutional, I mean, who is abortion protecting? People who are pro abortion seem to think that being dead is better than being alive in the first place.
yes,it should be a woman's right to choose.is'nt it protected by i believe the 4th amendment guranteeing us the right to privacy and abortion is a very private decision.we are all guranteed life%26liberty%26the pursuit of happiness and if a woman decides that an abortion will give her liberty%26happiness%26free up her life so she can have a life then that very private decision should be made by only her,let the decision maker bear the consequences. so yes abortion is constitutionally proteceted.
What we have is a Constitutional right to be left alone to make decisions about or own medical conditions, including pregnancy. The original Roe v. Wade opinion was based on how the Texas law at the time was unconstitutional. The difference is nobody has been able to get any drug cases to the Supreme Court when the right Justices were in.
did you ever think about how much joy a child would bring you?
People who have abortions and are pro choice are selfish morons and need to be put in their place.
Good question. It's interesting that they can find a mysterious "right to privacy" in the Constitution for the murder or an unborn innocent, but that same right doesn't exist for the use of drugs in the "privacy" of your own home.
The answer is no, no one really believes that there is a right to take an innocent life, whether it was in the Constitution or not. That is why those who are pro-abortion need to call the unborn child a "fetus". It alleviates some of their guilt.
Waiting for the thumbs down. People hate truth.
Oh, and by the way, there is also nothing in the Constitution about drugs being illegal. But if you think anything in this country is being done based upon the Constitution, you are sadly mistaken.
The Supreme Court has found that Americans have rights to make decisions concerning their own bodies. One of those decisions is whether or not to have an abortion. Since the belief that a fetus is a baby is just that, a belief, it cannot legally be considered killing anything, despite what opponents want people to think.
As to your additional statement, are you saying that before religions came about, murder and stealing and the like were socially acceptable? These laws are not based in religion, they are based in accepted societal standards of right and wrong. We do not base our laws in this country on religious doctrines.
I would advise reading a Con Law casebook and not asking the general population about a sophisticated legal question that inevitably untangles into a mess of moral and political spewing. FreeLawAnswer.com has its limits. Books don't.
Answers:
I don't think the others who have answered are getting your point. Let me try. If, as the Supremes have said, a woman has the right to an abortion because of the implied right to privacy, then why not permit abberant behavior of all sorts and claim it is protected by the implied right to privacy. In that you have a logical argument.
The most amazing part of the Roe decision was that there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, either. Their is a right to being secure in your person and papers but that is specifically limited to requiring law enforcement personnel to have search warrants or probable cause before searching you or examining your papers. How that was construed to mean you have a right to privacy is another stretch.
To answer one of the other people who responded questioning why people can bother you with their religion, we have freedom of religion we do not have freedom from religion. We also have freedom of speech we don't have freedom from speech. They have a right to preach, you have the right to preach back, not listen or otherwise go about your business.
.
i think so thats why the Supreme court is involved in the whole thing
I wanna know where it also says people have the right to push their religious beliefs on others...
Abortion is legal. Therefore, women have the right to choose to have one.
Drugs are illegal. Therefore, people do not have the right to break the law.
Pretty simple.
They think that because the Liberals have done a masterful job of framing it that way. They have a law (Roe V. Wade) that made it legal. It was passed in the Supreme Court on a 5 to 4 vote that was later to be found fraudulent in the facts department. Just they think they have a right not to be offended or to healthcare or a myriad of other non-constitutional rights.
The federal law says drugs are not legal so that is why you can't do them.
You can call it clump of cells, fetus, zygote,... whatever, it is still a form of human life being killed you stupid w*****!
Btw, I'm atheist. i don't need god to tell me you are a psychopath for killing your child.
Abortion is only legal because it is feasible. That might change in the future. As far as drugs are concerned, maybe they will be legal in the future as well. In my opinion abortion is no where near constitutional, I mean, who is abortion protecting? People who are pro abortion seem to think that being dead is better than being alive in the first place.
yes,it should be a woman's right to choose.is'nt it protected by i believe the 4th amendment guranteeing us the right to privacy and abortion is a very private decision.we are all guranteed life%26liberty%26the pursuit of happiness and if a woman decides that an abortion will give her liberty%26happiness%26free up her life so she can have a life then that very private decision should be made by only her,let the decision maker bear the consequences. so yes abortion is constitutionally proteceted.
What we have is a Constitutional right to be left alone to make decisions about or own medical conditions, including pregnancy. The original Roe v. Wade opinion was based on how the Texas law at the time was unconstitutional. The difference is nobody has been able to get any drug cases to the Supreme Court when the right Justices were in.
did you ever think about how much joy a child would bring you?
People who have abortions and are pro choice are selfish morons and need to be put in their place.
Good question. It's interesting that they can find a mysterious "right to privacy" in the Constitution for the murder or an unborn innocent, but that same right doesn't exist for the use of drugs in the "privacy" of your own home.
The answer is no, no one really believes that there is a right to take an innocent life, whether it was in the Constitution or not. That is why those who are pro-abortion need to call the unborn child a "fetus". It alleviates some of their guilt.
Waiting for the thumbs down. People hate truth.
Oh, and by the way, there is also nothing in the Constitution about drugs being illegal. But if you think anything in this country is being done based upon the Constitution, you are sadly mistaken.
The Supreme Court has found that Americans have rights to make decisions concerning their own bodies. One of those decisions is whether or not to have an abortion. Since the belief that a fetus is a baby is just that, a belief, it cannot legally be considered killing anything, despite what opponents want people to think.
As to your additional statement, are you saying that before religions came about, murder and stealing and the like were socially acceptable? These laws are not based in religion, they are based in accepted societal standards of right and wrong. We do not base our laws in this country on religious doctrines.
I would advise reading a Con Law casebook and not asking the general population about a sophisticated legal question that inevitably untangles into a mess of moral and political spewing. FreeLawAnswer.com has its limits. Books don't.
Do people have the right to discriminate, and is discrimination moral?
In a discussion that I am following on another forum, someone is stating that discrimination is a right. They also state that people don't have the right to not be discriminated against. As for the morality of it, they've also stated that since they do have the right to discriminate, it isn't immoral to be discriminatory. This is all in a discussion about business owners having the right to use discrimination as a main part of their hiring process. What are your thoughts on this?
Answers:
As individuals, we do have that right. As an employer, we don't.
No Shirt, No shoes, no service. Is that discrimination or just safe business?
Uh. NO! Ever read the constitution? Understand equality? No discrimination is moral. Period.
Well, it depends on circumstance, obviously. Discrimination is wrong when it negatively affects people who had no choice over their disposition (race, gender, etc.)...But is just fine when protecting yourself from people who did have a choice (criminals, specifically) or when you have a position that requires specific attributes to be carried out (you can't hire a man in a wheel chair to do roofing, etc.).
It's never black and white (so to speak).
A whole lot of discrimination is necessary. If we didn't discriminate against those who lack education, we'd have people doing delicate operations on us who are too stupid to write their own name.
We must set standards in order to function . If a person does not meet those standards, you discriminate against him.
Discrimination is acceptable human behavior when it is not offensive, irrational, damaging, obstructive or destructive.
Morality is a very elastic and protective notion for individuals or groups.
Answers:
As individuals, we do have that right. As an employer, we don't.
No Shirt, No shoes, no service. Is that discrimination or just safe business?
Uh. NO! Ever read the constitution? Understand equality? No discrimination is moral. Period.
Well, it depends on circumstance, obviously. Discrimination is wrong when it negatively affects people who had no choice over their disposition (race, gender, etc.)...But is just fine when protecting yourself from people who did have a choice (criminals, specifically) or when you have a position that requires specific attributes to be carried out (you can't hire a man in a wheel chair to do roofing, etc.).
It's never black and white (so to speak).
A whole lot of discrimination is necessary. If we didn't discriminate against those who lack education, we'd have people doing delicate operations on us who are too stupid to write their own name.
We must set standards in order to function . If a person does not meet those standards, you discriminate against him.
Discrimination is acceptable human behavior when it is not offensive, irrational, damaging, obstructive or destructive.
Morality is a very elastic and protective notion for individuals or groups.
Do people feel like a constitution is the place for banning gay marriage?
The Colorado constitution now says: "Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman." Can you imagine learning about a consitution and reading that line after learning about all the rights GIVEN to a group of people. Looking at the national constitution, it says all men are created equal, and grants us rights to bear arms, the right to vote (if you're black or female or under 21)...the constitution is a place to grant rights, and place where important rights have been added over time since the 1700s. Would our forefathers roll in their graves if they knew that we were using the constitution to ban people from rights?
Answers:
There have been gays as long as there has been people. Actually in some cultures it was perfectly acceptable.
A world in which everybody can be who they want to be on equal terms is wonderful. When I think of religion, I think of a time when they didn't have a toaster, a microwave, a car, a microscope, space challenger,a telescope. How can a civilization 2,000 years ago still apply to all of mankind's understandings of the present and still have validity?
Evolution is still occuring.
No, it is not. It is up to the church, not the state.
The purpose of a constitution is to lay out the structure of the government. The US Constitution also sets limitations on that government. It is not the place for specific laws proscribing specific conduct. It is ludicrous that a constitution of any type would contain one specific law against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage ? Ask Colorado. It's mostly Democrats anyway.
But the Rights you quoted out of Our Constitution? Please reread it and put the "Entire" quotes in your post..
Read the Constitution buddy - it speaks that only God can grant rights to man, that man can only protect those God Given rights.
Last time I read the Bible - God condemns and damns those men that lie with men and that whole ilk of sins.
I don't believe an amendment should be done in the US Constitution, because matters such of this should be taken up and managed by the states themselves, as per our Constitutional Republic.
The people of the state need to decide whether they are going to abide by the God given rights and protect them, or to go the way of socialism and allow anyone to do what they will, the hell with God.
I'd say the majority of Coloradans would rather abide by God's laws than allow for something that God condemns be made legal in their state.
------------------------------...
Addendum - despite liberal media and politicians, 5 out of 6 states that pushed for a Marriage Amendment that outlined marriage as being legal between only a man and a woman, passed those amendements.
Looks like the liberals of America still don't get or understand the average American and their moral values
I'm sorry to disagree with you in this case (I believe that gradually gay marriage should be allowed), but the Constitution is exactly the place for that. It is not just about granting rights (you are thinking of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the constitution), but it is also about limiting government, as well as a few other things.
If it is not made a constitutional amendment, then if ONE state allows gay marriage, all the others, even if they don't allow such marriages, must recognize the union of that particular couple.
They are, in essence, forced to recognize gay marriage against the will of their citizens.
Why is that a problem?
That means that every business in every state will have to give them full benefits.
If forced suddenly to do this, businesses will have three choices:
1) Do it and raise prices accordingly (nothing is free, whether health care, or gay marriage) to cover the extra cost;
2) Drop benefits for married couples (in states where they are forced to give them, they'll have to leave the state);
3) Go out of business.
This would be a serious blow to the U.S.A. economy.
At the same time, do we want a religious objection to prevent justice?
I have a simple solution. End benefits for married couples. Give benefits to paired child raisers. Give tax breaks to paired child raisers, not married couples, not single parents.
It would encourage marriage (and thus better conditions for children), and cut the costs for business and tax payers.
Our forefathers would be appalled at the idea of "gay marriage". They were products of their day, and it's kind of silly to ignore that to make a point that is fairly clearly false. Goodness sake, they left black people out of the Bill of Rights!
Answers:
There have been gays as long as there has been people. Actually in some cultures it was perfectly acceptable.
A world in which everybody can be who they want to be on equal terms is wonderful. When I think of religion, I think of a time when they didn't have a toaster, a microwave, a car, a microscope, space challenger,a telescope. How can a civilization 2,000 years ago still apply to all of mankind's understandings of the present and still have validity?
Evolution is still occuring.
No, it is not. It is up to the church, not the state.
The purpose of a constitution is to lay out the structure of the government. The US Constitution also sets limitations on that government. It is not the place for specific laws proscribing specific conduct. It is ludicrous that a constitution of any type would contain one specific law against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage ? Ask Colorado. It's mostly Democrats anyway.
But the Rights you quoted out of Our Constitution? Please reread it and put the "Entire" quotes in your post..
Read the Constitution buddy - it speaks that only God can grant rights to man, that man can only protect those God Given rights.
Last time I read the Bible - God condemns and damns those men that lie with men and that whole ilk of sins.
I don't believe an amendment should be done in the US Constitution, because matters such of this should be taken up and managed by the states themselves, as per our Constitutional Republic.
The people of the state need to decide whether they are going to abide by the God given rights and protect them, or to go the way of socialism and allow anyone to do what they will, the hell with God.
I'd say the majority of Coloradans would rather abide by God's laws than allow for something that God condemns be made legal in their state.
------------------------------...
Addendum - despite liberal media and politicians, 5 out of 6 states that pushed for a Marriage Amendment that outlined marriage as being legal between only a man and a woman, passed those amendements.
Looks like the liberals of America still don't get or understand the average American and their moral values
I'm sorry to disagree with you in this case (I believe that gradually gay marriage should be allowed), but the Constitution is exactly the place for that. It is not just about granting rights (you are thinking of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the constitution), but it is also about limiting government, as well as a few other things.
If it is not made a constitutional amendment, then if ONE state allows gay marriage, all the others, even if they don't allow such marriages, must recognize the union of that particular couple.
They are, in essence, forced to recognize gay marriage against the will of their citizens.
Why is that a problem?
That means that every business in every state will have to give them full benefits.
If forced suddenly to do this, businesses will have three choices:
1) Do it and raise prices accordingly (nothing is free, whether health care, or gay marriage) to cover the extra cost;
2) Drop benefits for married couples (in states where they are forced to give them, they'll have to leave the state);
3) Go out of business.
This would be a serious blow to the U.S.A. economy.
At the same time, do we want a religious objection to prevent justice?
I have a simple solution. End benefits for married couples. Give benefits to paired child raisers. Give tax breaks to paired child raisers, not married couples, not single parents.
It would encourage marriage (and thus better conditions for children), and cut the costs for business and tax payers.
Our forefathers would be appalled at the idea of "gay marriage". They were products of their day, and it's kind of silly to ignore that to make a point that is fairly clearly false. Goodness sake, they left black people out of the Bill of Rights!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Do paralegals make alot of money and are they in demand? Where can I find info?
Answers:
Depends on your education level.
Paralegals who have a BS Degree and Para Legal Schooling, are the ones who can make 50k to 70K a year.
If you only have a 2 year paralegal degree, you gonna make alot less, probally around 20K.
The ones with big hooters do...short of that, get a job that is not related to the legal profession. The next thing you know you'll want to be a politician...
It truly depends on your level of education and where you are trying to find a job. Paralegals in large lawfirms do make really good salaries. Most of them have some sort of education (some college or a paralegal certificate). Monster.com should be able to tell you how much paralegals make in your town.
I have a degree as a paralegal, they do 80% of the work for the attorney. If your really good at it all you need is your bosses signature and you will make the whole Law Firm much money. Also have a BS in the bs of political science, so you better be very good at it and still watch your own **** at the same time. Just call your local colleeges. Good Luck!
If you're going to waste your time studying to become a paralegal, why not take the step to study, graduate and become an attorney.
Just today, on the boat's XM radio, I was listening to a commercial from the 60s that advertised a degree in data entry / computer programming and they were SOOOOOO excited about the U.S. Census Bureau's projections for the salary for such. From $12,000 to $20,000 a year.in 1967.
If you think you want to settle for $40,000 to 70,000 a year, then settle. In today's world, that's pocket change.
No, they are like research assistants.
it is a very good and well paying profession. it also is a very hard profession.there has always been a big demand.you will help in law offices as well in the courtrooms during a trial
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)