Pictured: A BB Gun and box of BB-pellets. People have treated these as toys for years, but they can be used to kill.  

BB guns are a type of rifle that are treated as toys since they only use air to shoot small metal balls, rather than relying on the explosive force that gives bullets their fatal speeds.

An unfortunate incident involving a BB gun in Tampa, Florida led to a 17 year old dying after he was shot in the eye with one.  Although the majority of accidents involving BB guns are the result of the gun handlers failing to use eye protection, that wasn’t the case here.  The young man died as a result of his family-friend in the back seat – who was 8 years old – accidentally causing the gun to go off.

The two had been riding in the car with the 17-year-old friend-of-the-family in the front seat, and the adult driver’s children (including the 8 year old) riding in the back.  The incident began as the adult driver pulled up to an ATM and exited the car, leaving the minors unsupervised.

The youngest in the back seat, the 8-year-old was attempting to move the BB gun not knowing that it was loaded.  When the child moved the gun, it fired off a BB striking the 17-year-old front-passenger in the eye.

BB guns are widely seen as toys.  In reality, they are capable of major damage to property and (as is the case here) to lives. The companies that manufacture these devices often recommend the use of eye protection and to keep them out of the reach of young children.  Keeping a BB gun in the back seat of a car and accessible to unsupervised minors is a scenario that is not recommended.

The 8-year old who caused the gun to go off didn’t mean for it to do that.  Reports say the child explained they had been moving it out of the way so that they wouldn’t step on it and cause it to break when the incident occurred.

Regardless of the circumstance, there is a 17-year-old boy who lost his life because of an oversight of the adult in the car keeping a BB gun in their back seat.

—————————-
Questions:

1: Why should someone be charged – or why shouldn’t they be charged – in the death of the 17 year old in this case? Who is really to blame if anyone: the 8 year old, the adult driver who had left the BB gun in the back seat to begin with, or no one? Explain your answer.

2: If the adult driver had left a real firearm in the back seat, what would change about the case – how might it be handled differently? 

3: In the state of Nevada, what are some of the minimum and maximum consequences would the adult face for leaving a minor in the back seat with a loaded firearm accessible?

4: If the boy had been an adult themselves and shot a minor, what are the maximum and minimum charges they could face, if any? 

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/11/us/teenager-bb-gun-death-trnd/index.html

Contributed by: Joseph Motta

Amusement parks go above and beyond to entertain their guests during Halloween each year.  In Fright Fest at Six Flags, everyone is up for a good scare. The extra scares are appreciated, but the fall season also seems to bring an increase in bad behavior by some park attendees.  What nobody wants is to come home injured or assaulted, but unfortunately, that fear became a reality for one innocent family.

The family – an elderly couple and their 12 year old son – was attempting to ride one of the thrill rides at the park. While waiting in line, a group of friends cut in front of the family.  Skipping over the fact that the group had cut in front of them, the woman asked the group to at least stop using unpleasant language around her child.

That is when an attack began.

The 12 year old boy was physically seized upon by the group that had cut in front of his family. The mother and father attempted to intervene, but were quickly overwhelmed by the sizable group.  The family continued to be assaulted with punches, kicks, and stomps by their attackers until they submitted to the violence and fell to the ground.

Security at Six Flags broke up the attack quickly after a passersby reported the incident.  The attackers spread out in an attempt to escape, but fortunately most of them were prevented from getting away after security cornered them in the parking lot.

Local police reported to the scene, and a total of nine suspects were arrested & charged.   Later on, the city’s police chief commented that more suspects may have gotten away.  With this concern in mind, the police urged anyone with evidence to submit it to them. As the police chief explained “We know there’s a video out there. People had their phones out, but we have not gotten any additional video yet.”

Following the incident the family was rushed off and received care for their injuries, though eventually all three of them were discharged.

————————
Questions, Part 1:
Amusement parks have a lot of discretion in deciding what they allow to occur on their property.  They have a duty to protect those who come, which is why they deal with high safety standards and inspections for their rides.   The parks also allow a wide range of people to come in and enjoy themselves though.  

1.1) Is the process to enter an amusement park too easy?  

1.2) Should Six Flags be held financially or criminally responsible for the family’s injuries? What makes them responsible or not responsible?  

1.3) If you think Six Flags is responsible, what can they do to prevent attacks like these in the future?  If you don’t believe they’re responsible, what laws absolve them of that responsibility?  

Questions, Part 2: 
Research your response! 

2) The family of the incident experienced emotional and physical damage from the attack.  What consequences will the assailants that were caught face?

Questions, Part 3: 
According to the park, attacks like these are uncommon, “This is rare.” was the official line from park representatives, yet still the park was prepared for possible incidents like these, having doubled security patrols during holiday seasons.  Meanwhile, even with the double patrols, not all of the assailants were detained.   Consider the fact that some of the suspects were able to get away and that police are hoping cell phone footage will help identify the remaining suspects.  That means the park didn’t have sufficient security camera coverage to identify all of the assailants.  With that in mind….

3.1) Should the family place blame on Six Flags for negligence based on the failure of it’s video security?

3.2) Should seasonal events like this continue when the parks know they pose a risk of an increase in violent or otherwise troubling incidents?

3.3) Some of the attackers in the incident were minors.  Assuming their parents weren’t with them in the park, should the park be held responsible for allowing large groups of minors to be there without proper supervision?

3.4) What rules should be made for youth at parks, and should there be laws establishing standards for these rules (explain your answer – why or why not)?

3.5) Should security keep a closer eye on young adults at parks? What would lead them to be to strike out like this in such a large force?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/frightening-fest-family-attacked-beaten-by-teenagers-at-six-flags/

– Submitted by J. Floyd

The right to vote is a given liberty to all U.S citizens. This said anything given can be taken away. A felony conviction can cause a citizen to lose this precious right. In Florida, felons who have served their time have struggled to obtain their voting rights back. After taking their fight to Federal Court, things may have gotten better for people who’ve paid their debt to society.

Before the federal lawsuit, Florida’s felons would have to go before an Executive Clemency Board and request that their voting rights be restored.  Despite being a voter-elected position, Florida’s Governor is one of the people who have a seat on the state’s Executive Clemency Board.

Governor Scott had been the head panel member of the Board by nine people with past felonies.   They decided to sue for their rights back, and used one incident in particular to make their case:

At one point, Scott had restored the voting rights of a white man who had cast an illegal ballot in 2010 (an election during which he had voted for Scott – or so he claimed during the hearing which the Governor was present at).  Around the same time, Scott had denied five other requests, with four of those requests coming from African-Americans. With Scott being a touted-Republican and most of Florida’s African Americans being registered Democrats, the Governor’s judgment and use of power were brought into question by the lawsuit.

Politics aren’t supposed to play into the decision to restore voter rights. Florida’s intended design of the system was one where the Clemency Board reviews applicants eligible for restoration based if they pass the criteria. Eligibility is available five years after completion of a sentence with full payment of restitution. Soon after the Office of Executive Clemency inspect the applicant and decide from a range of factors the possible acceptance of restoration.

U.S District Judge Mark Walker’s questioned Scott’s “unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights”. The Judge’s decision in Federal Court ruled Florida’s right restoration system in violation of the 1st and 14th amendments.  Now as a result of the lawsuit, Governor Scott is the state’s first to have restrictions placed on his role in restoring felons’ rights to vote.

In defense of Florida’s practices, Scott’s communication director stated: “The discretion of the clemency board over the restoration of felons’ rights in Florida has been in place for decade[s] and overseen by multiple governors.”

Florida’s restoration system will now undergo changes as a result of Judge Walker’s ruling, and the nine people involved in the lawsuit will once again be able to attempt to restore their voting rights.

———————–
Questions

Part one: 
1) Nine people who filed this case to report issues with the process of rights restorations in Florida. They didn’t believe in the justice of that system, and the judge ended up ruling in their favor.  In his decision, the judge cited Florida’s state government for violating  the 1st and 14th amendments which lead to his final decision.

1.a) In what ways could Florida have violated these amendments? Do you agree or disagree with the Judge’s claim that these violations occurred?

1. b) The nine people were also burdened with the financial cost of paying for their case. Are they eligible for any kind of compensation for the expenses they took on, now that the case seems to have been decided in their favor? Tell us what laws support your answer.

1.c) The federal court had to intervene to establish balance for the restoration process in Florida because of the potential bias a governor may have.  With this restriction in place, how much authority does Florida have when it comes to returning right to their citizens, and is that too much or too little authority for the state to have?

Part two: 
2.a) A 2016 survey led statisticians to estimate that 1.68 million Floridians had lost their voting rights. These statistics differ around the country.  How many people in Nevada have lost their voting rights this year so far, and what about in the past 10 years?

2.b) How would someone in Nevada get their voting rights restored and how is that process different than the one in Florida?

Part three: 
3) As you’ve just learned, a citizens lose certain rights after being convicted of a felony. Once they’ve served their sentences, many of these people try to reform their lives to become better than they were before. Even though they’ve ‘served their time’, some will continue to experience ongoing punishment when some of their rights remain revoked (until they take additional steps to have some of those rights restored).   Does restricting felons’ rights after they’ve served out their sentences do enough to help them learn from their mistake, or does the policy of not instantly restoring their rights (like the right to vote) after they’ve been released from prison go too far? Explain your reasoning!

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_strikes_down_floridas_voting_restoration_process_for_felons/

-Submitted by J. Floyd

Spaghetti & meatballs is a common dish that satisfies people’s hunger across the globe. Popular as this pasta dish might be, one man’s craving for the staple food led him to end up in some hot water… with the law!

A man in Pennsylvania was craving the classic dish so much so that he broke into someone’s home and stole a pot of meatballs and sauce ( a crime in itself – meatballs and sauce with no carbs?!?  Get over yourself man!).

The victim (the person whose house was broken into) said he came home to the man in front of his house covered in red sauce. When he went inside he noticed the pot of meatballs with red sauce he’d been preparing was missing, and so he called the police.

The police arrived at the scene and began following up leads, since the suspect who had since ran off.  They eventually found him at his home – in the next city over – with his face and clothing still covered in the sauce from the pot!

The thief was charged with burglary, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal trespassing (when you enter somebody else’s property without their permission).  On top of all those charges related to the theft, he had already been “wanted on a warrant for failing to appear for a prior incident”.

————————
Questions:

1: What penalties could the thief face for the theft by unlawful taking charge?

2: What penalties could he face for the burglary charge?

3: What penalties could he face for the criminal trespassing charge?    As you answer these questions, keep in mind that the level of consequences people face relating to theft and property damage can be tied to the value of the property that was damaged or stolen.  

4: How much is a pot of meatballs and sauce worth?  Do you count the time that goes into preparing the dish?  Cooking is an emotional process for some people – does that increase the value?   Give us a few ideas of how you would account for the value of the stolen (and technically, destroyed) property.  Then, let us know if the changing value leads to a higher possible maximum penalty under the law!  Bonus points for those of you who reply with the punishments in Nevada compared to those in Pennsylvania, where the pasta sauce was pilfered!

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
 http://www.newsweek.com/meatball-theft-crime-sauce-red-pennsylvania-823775

Contributed by- J. Plummer

Internet celebrity Grumpy Cat should be doing anything but frowning after receiving over $700,000 in a lawsuit.

The frowny feline known as Grumpy Cat’s rise to popularity began in 2012 when her down and dismissive attitude won over the hearts of the meme market. Grumpy Cat’s stardom prompted her owner to monetize on that success, so she started Grumpy Cat Limited. The potential for profits from the sourpuss generated licensing deals with numerous companies.  One of those companies was Grenade (a beverage company).

Unfortunately, a licensing deal between the two companies to allow for the creation of iced coffees called “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” did not end well.  Grenade may have thought they weren’t doing anything wrong when they produced a line of “Grumpy Cat Roasted Coffee” products.

And that is where the real grump begins.

Drawn into a dispute, Grumpy Cat (the company, not the cat) brought Grenade to federal court in a copyright lawsuit.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed the roasted coffee featuring Grumpy Cat and Grumppuccino t-shirts which Grenade was also making and selling was not part of their licensing agreement.  The company claimed in court they had only licensed the use of Grumpy Cat for the ‘Grumpuccino Iced Coffees’.  Grumpy Cat Limited claimed that by using Grumpy cat to sell another coffee line and t-shirts, Grenade was stealing from them.

Grenade then turned around on Grumpy Cat Limited and filed a countersuit. They stated the crabby cat wasn’t promoting the iced coffee the way the licensing agreement had said she would.  Basically, Grenade claimed the grump’s slump of a movie career was a violation by Grumpy Cat Limited of stipulations in the licensing agreement.  To support the claim of contract violation, the company’s attorney pointed out an instance where the owner failed to mention the Grumpuccino Iced Coffee in a live appearance on Fox News (as promised), and the minor amount of social media posts about the chilled beverage from accounts controlled by Grumpy Cat Limited.

These claims though fell on deaf ears as the jury threw out the countersuit and decided in favor of Grumpy Cat Limited, awarding the cat (or at least her company) more than $700,000. Following this decision, the favorable feline can now hold her head high while hanging her frown low.

—————–
Questions

1) The 7th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of trial by jury in serious criminal cases and certain civil ones like this.  Both sides, in this case, are entitled to request a jury trial to decide the verdict.  Grumpy Cat is a known icon on the internet and is bound to have some sort of diverse fanbase.  Do you believe a person’s status affect juries in court, and if so, how?

2) Why do you think Grumpy Cat’s status as a famous internet cat was or was not a factor in the outcome of her court case?

3) Explain what you think courts do to to make sure someone doesn’t avoid getting in trouble just because they are rich or famous.  Does that work? Why or why not?

4 ) Grumpy Cat Limited’s initial lawsuit was over Grenade’s infringement of copyright. What are some otherways people can get in trouble for ignoring someone’s copyright rights (for ignoring that they own the rights to a character, image, or idea)?

4) After being sued by Grumpy Cat Limited, Grenade launched a countersuit against the company in an attempt to defend themselves (that means they got the law suit, and before the case went to trial they filed a lawsuit back at the plaintiff calling them to court). They claimed that Grumpy Cat Limited didn’t deliver on the duties they promised to fulfill in the agreement by not making enough social media posts promoting the product, and the Fox News shout-out that didn‘t happen. If Grenade was claiming they used Grumpy Cat on the other coffee and t-shirts to make up for the money they lost when Grumpy’s company didn’t do those things (even though they said they would in the contract), why should they or shouldn’t they have had a chance to win in court as they defended themselves?

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-grumpy-cat-lawsuit-20180124-story.html

-Submitted by J. Floyd

An upscale French restaurant called L’Orangerie, in West Hollywood, California got a lot of bad attention in 1980 after a woman named Kathleen Bick and a man, named Larry Becker  sat down for dinner and were handed two menus.  Why? Because the menu handed to Larry was green, and the menu handed to Kathleen was white.  Color wasn’t the only difference between the two menus though:  The white menu that had been handed to Kathleen was what the restaurant called a “ladies menu” and it listed all the items that could be ordered, but there were no prices next to each item! The green menu that had been handed to Larry had the same items, but this one included the prices next to each item!  For example, a serving of lamb would have cost $26 at the time (that would cost about $82 today!).

The different menus reflected a European tradition: Just  assume that the man always pays for the woman’s meal. Other ‘high-end’ (fancy) restaurants in the United States did the same thing at the time, but it wasn’t a super-popular thing to do so Larry and Kathleen didn’t know to expect it. The two got really mad (why after all should Kathleen be treated any differently) and they just left the restaurant without ordering.  Kathleen stated that she felt “humiliated and incensed [angry and enraged]”, when given the ladies menu.  Instead of ordering lunch, they ordered a lawsuit by calling a lawyer: Gloria Allred (who happens to be really famous – Google her sometime)!

When asked by their lawyer to explain the menus and why Kathleen had been treated differently, the restaurant owner just said “It is the French way”.  That lack of an apology or good reason, along with the owner’s refusal to end the dual menu when Ms. Allred  requested it led her to file a lawsuit on behalf of Kathleen and Larry.   Gloria said the two had been discriminated against based on their genders.  If that did happen, then it would have violated California’s Civil Rights Act (a law against discriminating against people).

For money, the lawsuit only asked the restaurant to pay $250 for the inconvenience, which wouldn’t have been a big deal, but it also demanded that they stop using 2 menus.  The restaurant owners defended their practice as the same as other practices some men did for women at the time like “…lighting a cigarette or standing up when she enters the room.”.  The courts were getting ready to hear the case, but Ms. Allred didn’t want to wait, so she decided to try something else.  Allred and her clients set up a table with an elegant place setting in front of the L’Orangerie restaurant, and called a bunch of reporters.   They showed up and covered the outdoors protest dinner extensively on television, radio and in newspapers.  The strategy worked and eventually the restaurant ended their dual-menu practice.   That led to Gloria dropping the lawsuit with her clients’ permission.

Restaurants in the United States that still practiced the dual menu, which were few and far between already, were warned in a 1981 publication that they may lose in court if they continued this practice, and it seems most of them stopped doing it.  It is not 100% known if any restaurants in the United States that still follow this practice. If they do, let’s hope that Gloria Allred doesn’t know about it.

————————
 Questions:

1: Why do you think the two plaintiffs in this case either exaggerated or didn’t exagerate their reaction to the dual menu practice? 

2: Why do you think they were or were not justified in feeling discriminated against? 

3: If this had happened to you, why would you have sued or not sued the restaurant?    

4: Here in Nevada several years ago,  the Las Vegas Athletic Club faced a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission after a  woman was given a free membership to the club but her husband was forced to pay an enrollment fee for the exact same thing! The couple filed a Civil Rights complaint against the gym, claiming discrimination because of his gender.  The commission isn’t the same as a court, but it can issue fines.  In this case, it found that the practice was discrimination.  Many businesses have similar practices – they encourage women to attend for lower or free rates, and charge men full price.   They argue that it is fair because men have been treated better for years (like having the right to vote long before women) so it’s just ‘making things even’.  What do you think: Why are ‘deals’ given to women a bad form of discrimination, or why aren’t they so bad?     

Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here:
https://api.atlasobscura.com/articles/ladies-menus-no-prices-lawsuit
https://www.clubindustry.com/commercial-clubs/commission-rules-against-las-vegas-athletic-club-0