Golden Answers & Golden Knights:
Questions About Laws and Fighting!
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.
If two people at a social gathering start to argue and agree to ‘step outside’ to fight each other, the police may be called and each of the combatants may end up facing charges including assault, battery, malicious mischief, breach of peace, challenges to fight, or provoking assault. ————————– Question:
1) What laws or policies allow for two people that fight during sporting events to not face criminal charges (even though the fights are witnessed by thousands of people), yet two people who consent to fight each other and engage in violence outside of a sporting event will probably face many different criminal charges for their fight?
2) What policies exist specifically in Nevada related to the last question about fighting in sports?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Seriously Stupid:
Swatting a School Shooting Survivor
A quick note for the olds: Swatting is when emergency services (like 911) 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.
————————– Questions:
1) 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?
Did Russia Consider Returning Snowden to the US?
We May Never Know…
In February 2017, reports were circulating that Russia was considering sending Edward Snowden back to the US “as a gift for President Donald Trump” as reported by NBC. At the time, NBC cited an unnamed senior US official who has reviewed intelligence on the matter.
Edward Snowden has lived in Russia since 2013 and recently launched a campaign with his legal team to get him pardoned. Snowden still faces being charged with leaking classified information and treason for his pivotal role in the months-long releases of information about America’s digital surveillance programs, should he return to the United States.
In April 2017 however, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said publicly that Edward Snowden can stay in Russia until he decides to leave for himself. When asked, Zakharova did not clarify on if Russia would consider extraditing Snowden to the U.S. at a later point in time.
This post is about more than just an update to a news story about privacy law and policy. The difference in tone, content, and conclusion (or lack thereof) between the stories should lead readers to question the reliability of news stories that speculate. In an age where people of all political leanings and affiliations make claims of fake news, we encourage the students we connect with to consume all media – no matter the source – with critical eyes.
————————– Questions:
1) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s Leaks were a good or bad thing?
2) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be punished for leaking the information that he did?
3) Why do you believe Edward Snowden’s should or should not be pardoned?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
Man Drags Unconscious Passenger Off
Blue Line Train in Long Beach, CA:
Witness Said He Wanted to Avoid Delay
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.
————————– Questions: 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?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Salt Bae Gets Salty After
Health Code Violation Accusations
The man known as Salt Bae’s technique for salting steaks captivated the world, quickly elevating him to meme-status. After he opened his new restaurant recently however, some people weren’t so quick to ‘like and share’. A few sticklers for the law were quick to point out that he might be violating New York City’s health code.
Salt Bae’s critics pointed out that by salting steaks without gloves, this living meme appeared to be breaking clause 81.07 of the NYC health code. That clause states that there must be use of tools of ‘sufficient length to prevent bare hand contact with ready to eat potentially hazardous food’.
After being called out he started wearing gloves. With his salting technique which employs significant amounts of flair, pomp, and circumstance though, salt may still hit his bare forearm before reaching his customers’ plates.
A common condiment isn’t the only legal matter keeping Salt Bae so salty these days though.
According to videos he’s posted to Instagram, he had been slicing steaks at customers’ tables without gloves and while wearing a flashy watch – 2 more possible violations of NYC health code! In addition to the first violation, by wearing a watch he’s also violating a rule stating ‘food workers may not wear jewelry on their arms unless it’s a medical bracelet or smooth ring’..
New York City’s Department of Health said they would be launching an investigation into the violations. The restaurant opened earlier this year and has received mixed reviews over price, food quality and the overall experience. Sounds like this Salt Bae could use a little sweetness these days!
————————– Questions:
1) What consequences could the restaurant face if it is found to be violating NYC health code?
2) Can videos posted to social media be used as admissible evidence if charges are filed?
3) Do you think the case is being handled differently, or should be handled differently since a celebrity is involved?
Criminal Complaints From
Villainous Avengers Fans!
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.”
————————– Questions:
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.
The Patents Behind Facebook’s
Scary Accurate Friend Suggestions…
Have you ever heard of people receiving Facebook “friend suggestions” that were so accurate that they were creepy? Maybe one night they attended a party and only talked to one person, then somehow woke up the next morning to find that Facebook had suggested the person friend-request them!
It happens more often than you think, and there is a perfectly legal reason for it! The social media site uses technology to connect two people based on the metadata from cameras used to upload photos and the data embedded into those pictures (data like GPS coordinates where the picture was taken). Even scratches and dust marks in the pictures could be used to identify a specific camera that was used to take the picture.
Facebook is legally allowed to do all of this, but people only know that the company even had the idea to do that because of a series of patents they filed in 2014 and 2015. If someone else uses their invention (in this case the technology) without permission, they can be taken to court and sued!
One of the patents is titled ‘Systems and methods for utilizing wireless communications to suggest connections for a user’ and explains how logged smartphone data can be used to make friend recommendations. The algorithm incorporates other information as well, like the amount of time between two wireless communications (uploading and receiving a photo) or the signal strength at the time of the data exchange. With those seemingly impersonal bits of information, Facebook is able to recognize and identify when two people are walking together or facing each other.
Another of the patents is titled ‘Associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system’ and highlights how data from photos uploaded to the site can be used to connect people. The ‘data’ that is compared isn’t just 1s and 0s… The patent details how the information used to identify the photographer could be as simple as a file name or as complex as a dust particle on a camera lens that appears in the same place in multiple photos (which suggest they were taken by the same camera, like a photographic fingerprint).
————————– Questions:
1) Even if the processes Facebook patented are lawful, what are the implications for non-users that get identified by the algorithm?
2) Imagine this: You’re a privacy hound who doesn’t use social media sites because you like to control the use of your data simply because you don’t like mega corporations. Let’s say you’re also a photographer, and you post photos to a website. If a fan of yours shared a photo on Facebook and labeled you as the photographer, would Facebook have a legal right to identify other pictures you’d taken with the same camera even if you weren’t the person uploading them to the website?
3) What could a non-user do to fight this system?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize
Boycott Campaign Against Israel
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?
4) 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 lawmakers 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 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
5) How are your feelings (as explained in response to Question 4) supported or not supported by the wording of the First Amendment, and what precedent-setting legal decisions support your response?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
A 2,000-year-old terracotta warrior from China had one of its thumbs stolen while in an American museum. The suspected thief was caught on camera sneaking into the warrior’s exhibit, taking a selfie with the statue, and then breaking off its thumb. The camera then caught him pocketing the terracotta thumb and taking it.
Not important but also interesting: the thief burgled the museum during an ugly0-sweater party being held there!
On the way home from the party, a suspect named Michael Rohana bragged to his friends about successfully stealing part of a warrior. A month later the FBI went to his house and questioned him which lead to the return of the missing thumb. As a result he was charged with multiple crimes including “concealment of an object of cultural heritage stolen from a museum” (meaning that he knew the thumb was stolen from the museum yet he kept it like it was his own belonging.)
The warrior statues were discovered by a Chinese farmer in 1974 but originally date all the way back to 209 BC. Sculptures like the one that had its thumb stolen were created in order to protect the tomb of China’s first emperor. At the time of the theft, the statue was worth $4.5 million. Additionally China has to send two experts to the United States to try and repair the thumb.
Chinese officials and citizens are upset at both the museum and the United States for the lack of security for the sculptures and for failing to protect the warrior from harm. Users of China’s Facebook-like service Weibo left critical comments about the incident, including one user who noted that the warriors “are kept far away from the public” (in China) and asked “How come the sculptures in Philadelphia are not displayed inside glass cases?”
The man – Michael Rohana – made a quick decision to mess with the terracotta warrior’s display to try and impress his friends. Now he has to face consequences starting with going to court, though he’s likely to face much worse than that!
————————– Questions:
1) Given the fact that the damaged item was originally worth $4.5 million and that the thumb portion of it was taken illegally, what are the lowest criminal charges or consequences the suspect can face (if they were charged in Nevada)?
2) The artifact was being borrowed while it was damaged. If China decides to take action against the US, what court would the case be taken to (China’s? American Federal Court? An American State Court?) and what charges could the US government face, if any? If not the government, who would end up in court and why would it be a criminal or civil case (pick one or the other and explain why you chose that way)?
3) Everyone know of someone (maybe even themselves) who’ve just done what the thumb-thief did: failed to think about the consequences and just quickly acted on an impulse. What is something you saw – or even did – that could have resulted in a lot of big trouble all because you or that person you saw just didn’t stop to think, and then act? What could the consequences have been?
In April 2017, President Trump’s administration launched a hotline for crime victims to call if they believe they were the victims of crimes committed by people that are in America illegally. The White House’s goal was to create a means for Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents to prioritize cases to research and follow up on.
Social activists with a sense of humor felt that the President’s administration and the leadership team at ICE have been wrongfully demonizing immigrants. Since immigrants are often referred to as ‘illegal aliens’, thousands of outraged citizens began calling the hotline to leave messages reporting plotlines from classic films featuring extraterrestrial aliens (”A small creature with a long neck, wide body, and glowing finger stole my Reese’s Pieces” or “Something jumped on my face and now I feel like my chest is about to explode” were common examples).
The subject of immigration and enforcement of immigration law is at the heart of many national debates across the country. In fact, people are very passionate about their feelings on the subject and can often react with anger and shouting. While the hotline may have been well intentioned, it was clearly perceived as offensive by some segments of America. With the national debate being as intense as it is, it is nice to see that this act of protest chose humor over shouting as a way to express feelings that conflict with people on the other side of the debate. Hopefully more laughs will help heal a divide created by divisive subjects in national conversation.
————————– Questions:
1) How do you feel about the hotline, and what causes you to feel that way?
2) Do you think there could be some benefit or are you entirely against it, and why do you feel that way?
3) What about the protesters’ decision to use humor to express their dissatisfaction with a national policy – Why and how do you find their tactics either effective or just silly?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity.
- Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Project Real
2020-12-16T21:47:04+00:00
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity. - Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time.
- Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-11T20:39:35+00:00
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time. - Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you
-Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-16T22:04:09+00:00
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you -Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
