Play By The Rules - Law Related Stories for Grades 5-8

[pbtrnews]

Driverless Cars, Accidents, & You:  Who Gets Sued?!

(Pictured: You see kids, when two self-driving vehicles fall in love they make robot-babies.... and those robot-babies grow up to become our FUTURE ROBOT OVERLORDS. But hey, Tesla cars are cool!)

When someone breaks a law, they generally get in trouble - that’s just the way the world work. Systems of law have been managing the conduct of nations and their citizens as long as civilizations have been in place.  With the technology renaissance of the 21st century, a new form of life has been participating in society, and just like humans some of them have begun to break laws.  We are talking about - of course - robots. 

In 2015, a self-driving car created by Google was operating in the area around the company’s headquarters.  The driverless vehicle had been on a road near ‘the company campus’ when it ended up getting pulled over - for going 10 miles an hour below the speed limit!  Basically, it had been violating traffic laws by holding up traffic without a good reason. 

News outlets report that the officer after discovering that there was no one driving the car, contacted the operators responsible for programming the vehicle. The article also reports that several cars in the Google self-driving fleet have been in accidents, although none of them have been reported to be the self-driving car’s fault.  The incident comes on the heels of many people questioning the safety of self-driving vehicles. 

For many years now, electric car manufacturer Tesla has touted its self-driving initiative and how much safer it is than actually driving.  Tesla’s critics are still skeptical of the company’s self-driving vehicles’ capacity to be safe at all, pointing to a National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB) investigation of a 2018 fatal accident that involved a self-driving Tesla.  In that incident, the car’s driver life being lost (instead of steering the car, the ‘driver’ had handed control over to the vehicle's self-driving computer when the accident took place). The NTSB  report found that the Tesla vehicle had actually acted in a way meant to try the driver, however the vehicle still ended up crashing.   Many skeptics of self-driving vehicles point to that crash in particular as a reason that driverless cars and trucks should not be allowed on the roadways.

Instances like the fatal Tesla crash and the slow self-driving  Google car provide examples of a significant issue that goes beyond just general safety - one that will become more relevant as technology continues to evolve: 

So, when a robot or AI commits a crime that puts humans or other lives in danger, who is responsible in a legal sense? 

Technology has and will continue to develop at a rate that the law can’t keep up with. If there are robots used to make work easier in a factory for example, who is responsible if a ‘thinking’ machine harms a human worker in a workplace accident -  the programmer, the actual ‘code’ of the machine, the company, or someone (or something) else entirely?  As companies, manufacturers, and even governments are beginning to make the push for automated processes like self-driving vehicles that include the use of Robots, AI, and other ‘driverless’ technologies, we will all begin to be faced with these questions.  

 Questions:

1: Who should be held civilly and/or criminally accountable when a robot is involved in  crime?  Explain your choice(s)

2: What laws should be put in place to ensure that the right entities (people / companies / robots) are held accountable for Artificial Intelligence related problems, and how will they help prevent or address those problems?

3: What are some things that a robot could do to break a law? 

4: Should a person who built a robot that commits a crime, be charged to the same level as contributing to the crime or aiding in it? Explain why you think they should or should not.

Be sure to explain the thinking behind your answers, and for more details, you can read the articles this piece was sourced from here: 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over-driving-too-slowly

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/02/13/ntsb-releases-report-on-2018-fatal-silicon-valley-tesla-autopilot-crash/#395bd32842a8

Contributed By: Joseph Motta

[pbtrnews]

Grand Theft Auto IRL featuring....An 8-Year Old?!?

YouTube can teach people a lot of different things: cooking, gaming, music... even lock-picking!  If there’s a skill you would like to pickup, YouTube probably has a video about it!  Just because someone teaches you how to do something on YouTube, that doesn’t mean you should actually do it. 

In Ohio, an 8-year-old boy (who is not identified by name due to his age) used YouTube to watch a video for people learning how to drive. After watching the video, he decided he was well prepared and decided to go out and try out his new skills. Unaware that he was doing something wrong, the rookie NASCAR driver invited his sister to tag along with him on a drive to McDonald’s. 

Generally it is common knowledge that the legal age to drive is generally 16 years old throughout the United States.  Most people closer to that age know better and know not to get behind a wheel. However according to police, this little boy did not know any better, which led to his having a bit of an adventure in the driver’s seat of a car. 

According to the boy’s statement, the parents had not been monitoring the situation, which iw what led to his being able to get ahold of their keys and bringing his little sister along for the joyride.

According to reports, the unnamed child-driver managed to steer the family car to a McDonald’s drive thru in search of a cheeseburger. When he arrived at the window, the employees were overcome with a combination of shock, laughter, and confusion as they saw a little boy driving a car with his little sister in the vehicle as well. 

Police questioned the boy and had discovered his research into driving a car and that he did not know he was doing something wrong. Witnesses had even told the officers that the boy had driven  the 1.5 mile route perfectly and obeyed all traffic rules (well, except the fact that he was 8!). 

Even though he lacked criminal intent and regardless of the fact that he drove the car well, the child still took his parents car without their knowledge.  As a result, he had placed his little sister and himself in grave danger. 

Authorities have begun looking into violations relating to parenting and child protection laws. After all, how could two parents not notice their son take their keys, grab his sister, and then proceed to get in the car and drive away?  Although early reports did not point to child neglect, authorities planned to continue investigating to ensure they children are being raised in a safe environment.

 Questions:

1: Whose fault is it? The boy who took the car? Or the parents who weren’t paying enough attention for him to be able to take it?

2: Had he been an adult without a license, should he have been arrested? Why or why not?

3: Should the boy have gone to juvenile hall and faced real consequences for choosing to break a rule? Why or why not?

4: If you broke a law that you didn’t know existed, should you still be charged normally or given a warning? Why or why not? 

Be sure to explain the thinking behind your answers, and for more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:

https://www.wfmj.com/story/35131203/east-palestine-police-8-year-old-drives-4-year-old-sister-to-get-cheeseburger Contributed by: Joseph Motta

[pbtrnews]

Beer + Bulletproof Vests = The New ‘Drinking & Driving’ ?!?

Being a responsible gun owner involves a lot of care and the ability to make good decisions.  Clearly, shooting your friend while they are wearing a bullet proof vest would not be an example of either of those behaviors.  Despite that, two fifty-year old men in Arkansas found themselves facing criminal charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm in that exact situation.  Here’s what happened:

Around April 2018, Charles Eugene Ferris, 50, and Christopher Hicks, 36 had a terrible idea (they were drunk, so they thought it was a GREAT idea….as you can tell from the headline, they were wrong).   While intoxicated both men began to take turns with a .22 caliber rifle. Ferris was shot once in the chest and was left with a large red mark. Ferris then proceeded to unload a clip into Hicks’ back in retaliation.

The men arrived at the hospital after Ferris complained of chest pain. After learning that it was a result of a gunshot wound, the police were called to take a statement.

Reports explained that while this story is already bizarre, it gets much weirder. The two men came up with an elaborate story to try and cover up their drunken adventures, telling the police they were bodyguards that had been hired to protect a client.  While it is unclear which of the two men said it, according to the police report one of them claimed to have followed ‘the client’ into a forest, and that the client was then shot at.  According to their story, the shooting was what led to Ferris having six bruises in the back from gunshots.

Police actually believed the story at first, but then Ferris’ wife showed up to the hospital and told the authorities what actually happened. 

After learning the truth about the requested shooting, the man admitted he had made the story up to protect his friend who had originally shot him.

Stories like this always have the potential to turn out much worse than they already do. There are a number of different factors that could have ended up taking one of the men’s lives or even worse, the lives of others around them that had nothing to do with the act of shooting your friend for fun. 

All it takes for a situation like this to turn from minor injuries to a deadly consequence is a poor aim, a faulty bullet-proof vest, or a bystander walking by at the wrong time. These are a few of the reason’s laws are made to protect lives. Both of the men are responsible for their actions, as well of what their actions could have turned into had something gone terribly wrong. 

 Questions:

1: Is an activity like this protected by the Second Amendment? Why or Why not?

2: Could the men be exercising their lawful gun rights but ALSO charged w/ some kind of   charges about endangering the public? How, or why not?

3: If this happened in Nevada, how many years in jail, how much money fined, and what other consequences would these men face after an action like this?

4. Imagine one of the men had died as a result of this incident, then list 3 criminal charges they would face if the incident happened in Nevada. Then, list the maximum amount of penalties that defendant would be faced with if they were to face those charges. Finally, imagine instead of the bullet hitting one of the men as willing participants, imagine if the bullet hit a random passer-by.  Explain if the charges faced by the shooter would be the same or different, and why that would be the case.

 Be sure to provide full explanations for your answers.  For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here: https://www.5newsonline.com/article/news/local/outreach/back-to-school/police-rogers-men-shoot-each-other-while-wearing-bulletproof-vest/527-e6176adb-820c-41d4-9783-5c160cacbc53

[pbtrnews]

3 Assassinations, International Intrigue, & Your Right to Remain Silent…

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to an attorney….”  Those words – which you may recognize from shows or movies – are the words used to inform someone who is being arrested if their Miranda Rights.   They’re not just for entertainment though – they are very real rights every American is entitled to, but they have only been read to suspects since 1966.  That process came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision, but their origins date back much earlier. In fact, the process of reading a suspect their Miranda Rights is rooted in a historical event that took place in 1919.

That year, a triple murder of foreign diplomats occurred in Washington D.C. (a diplomat is someone who acts as the representative of a foreign government). The three victims all worked for the Chinese Educational Mission before being assassinated. When there were no leads or clear motives, the police focused in on the only suspect they had.

On the day of the assassinations, a young Chinese student named Ziang Sung Wan had been seen at the house where the killings had occurred. The police went to his home in New York and after searching it without a warrant, pressured Wan (who was suffering from a flu at the time) into going back to Washington D.C.  with them.  Upon their arrival, the authorities isolated Ziang in a hotel room and held him without formally placing him under formal arrest.  After extended periods of isolation and interrogation that lasted more than 9 days, they eventually pressured him into making a confession.

During trial for the murders, Wan took back his confession, saying that he only confessed to make the detectives’ interrogation come to an end. The judge refused to acknowledge Wan’s statement despite the conditions that were used to obtain his confession.  Eventually, Wan was found guilty of first degree-murder.  At the time, the penalty for a guilty first-degree murder conviction was death-by-hanging.

Wan’s case was one of many at the time that had stirred debate among judges and lawyers in the country over which police conduct and interrogation methods were lawful, and which of those methods and behaviors were unlawful.  At the same time, Ziang’s attorneys were filing appeals and pursuing their client’s acquittal relentlessly, knowing that his life was on the line.  Eventually Ziang’s lawyers managed to get his case heard by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

As a result of the raging national debate in the law community over police tactics and the constitutional questions raised by Ziang’s case, one justice was tasked with drafting up a decision that would lay the groundwork for the Miranda Rights we know today.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote the court’s decision, in which the court interpreted the Fifth Amendment as permitting only volunteer confessions as being admissible as evidence in federal court proceedings, and that a confession could be coerced involuntarily even if an explicit threat had not made.

If that’s too wordy, think about it like this: The police didn’t tell Ziang “If you don’t confess we’re going to break your legs”.  Because they held him for 9 days though - while he was sick, in uncomfortable conditions, and without telling him when they would stop -  they had basically forced him to confess to end the torment he was experiencing.

Unfortunately, because Wan had been tried in Washington D.C. (which is a federal jurisdiction) the new standard only applied to cases in federal courts. The ruling wouldn’t apply to states or local court proceedings for years.  The standard created by Justice Brandeis’ ruling also ended up being interpreted in a variety of ways for decades after it was first issued.  For years after the ruling, cases ended up before SCOTUS that would produce rulings which added more specificity to Justice Brandeis’ initial court opinion on Ziang’s case.

Eventually, in 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren would mandate safeguards for suspects dealing with police in the opinion he issued for SCOTUS in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.  Those safeguards would eventually develop into the Miranda Rights most people are familiar with today. His writings leaned heavily on the court opinion issued in response to Wan’s case, making it clear the Ziang Sung Wan v. United States is the legal soil from which the Miranda Rights we know today grew from.

Thanks to the Wan and Miranda decisions, today suspects are informed that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in the court of law, that they have the right to counsel, and that if they are unable to afford one, an attorney will be appointed for them.

1)    Now that you know some of the history behind Miranda Rights, do you have any feelings about your right to remain silent? What questions do you have about your right to remain silent?

2)      TV may lead you to think that the right to remain silent is only used by criminals who are done talking to police and want to leave the interview.  That’s not the case at all though.  What are some situations that could lead someone to exercise their right to remain silent?

3)      Suppose you found yourself needing to exercising your right to remain silent.  What would that look like?  Simply saying “I wouldn’t talk” isn’t enough: Tell us Why you might have decided to exercise your right, what you would do while exercising that right, how you would be treated while exercising the right, and the possible benefits and consequences of remaining silent.

When replying to any of the questions above, please provide detailed responses.  If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1919-murder-case-gave-americans-right-remain-silent-180968916/

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

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.”

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.

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here: http://www.businessinsider.com/infinity-war-directors-received-death-threats-over-hawkeyes-absence-2018-6

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

Controversial White House Tape & Records… In 2018!?

One of the things the Nixon Presidential Administration will always be remembered for are the tapes made in the Whitehouse. Now thought of as a matter of history, at the time the taped recordings made at the white house were highly controversial.  These taped records of conversation in the White House are credited as having played a major role in the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Given all of that history, a situation where tape, record, president, and white house can be used in the same sentence is one that most administrations would try to avoid.  The 45th president of the United States however has a reputation for doing things differently, which may be why we have this interesting story to share with you:

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 states that all presidential records must be preserved.  You may not be familiar with the law, since you’re not President of The United States. So, you know – that’s fair.

When someone is elected to the Presidency of the United States for their first term, there’s a transition period during which they are taught about policies, procedures, and laws they need to abide by.

Despite measures like the briefings given to a president-elect, President Donald Trump apparently has a habit of ripping up things like notes, memos and other papers when he has finished with them. White house staffers have reportedly been taping these documents back together after the President has torn, ripped, or shredded them so that the administration remains in compliance with The Presidential Records Act of 1978.

Invitations, letters and newspaper clips with notes are regularly torn up by President Trump. Clear scotch tape was given to employees to piece the ripped documents back together. One employee who was fired early on in 2018 that had claimed he put papers back together on the job said “We’re making more than $60,000 a year, we need to be doing far more important things than this. It felt like the lowest form of work you can take on without having to empty the trash cans.”

The employee who was fired claims that when he left the office, employees were still regularly engaged in the practice of taping documents back together. Some White House staff called the ripping habit Trump’s ‘unofficial filing system.’ The White House had no comment on the situation when asked.

1) In America, no person – including - the president is not above the law.  Everyone needs to #PlayByTheRules.  That being said, if the documents are able to be pieced back together, does President Trump’s tearing up documents count as ‘document destruction’?  Could it be successfully argued that tearing up documents is just a really bad system of organization that makes records preservation harder?

2) What if the president were to go further though?  Imagine instead of liking to tear up documents when being done with them, a president preferred to set them on fire.  Clearly then, the document would be destroyed.  What would the legal consequences be for violating The Presidential Records Act of 1978?

3) Pick a side: Do you think that there are any laws a president should be exempt from?

- If you agree: What laws should a president be exempt from, and what are the reasons for exempting the president?

- If you disagree: Why should the president have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Are there benefits, and if so what are they?  Is is simply to avoid risks, and if so what risks are being avoided by making presidents follow every single law that everyone else has to follow?  Give a thoughtful, detailed, response!

Explain your answers to any question you reply to in detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rips-documents_us_5b1e030de4b09d7a3d744da2

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

‘Your Government’ Sent You a Follow Request.  Accept?

China’s government has begun to implement a system that ranks its population with a score based on their ‘social credit’.

The Chinese social credit score is similar to a financial credit score - it moves up or down depending on the behavior of the person being scored. The program is already being piloted for millions of Chinese citizens, and China’s government hopes the system will be in place for all of its citizens by 2020.  The program was first announced in 2014.  According to a government document, the system is meant to support the national ideal that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful.”

Any number of actions can impact a person’s social credit score in China’s program like trying to ride a train without a ticket, smoking in a non-smoking area, lingering in public spaces without explanation.  Those are all reasons someone’s social score might be lowered, and they may seem reasonable – but there are other reasons that seem more troubling.

Whether someone buys unnecessary items, the amount of time they spend playing video games, what they post on social media, and if they spread what the government deems to be fake news are also sources of social score point reductions.

If you’re not already familiar with the Chinese Government’s definition of ‘fake news’, Google ‘China Government Tiananmen Square State News’, find a reliable source to learn from, and read an article or two about it.  Then, think about their social scoring system again.

Refusing military service can also have a negative effect on your score.

If someone happens to get a bad social credit score, they could face barriers such as restricted travel. Meaning if your score is low enough you could be prevented from buying domestic flight tickets and business-class train tickets. You could also be barred from enrolling in higher education, unable to continue your studies and may not be able to enroll your kids in private schools.

Think about that: If you’re a straight A student that plays a lot of video games, you could be barred from enrolling in higher education because of how much you enjoy gaming – despite your good grades!

Having a good social credit score can also provide rewards like speeding up travel applications, receiving discounts on energy bills and even getting more matches on dating websites! Some citizens in China claim that the system has already made people’s behaviors improve.

If a system like China’s ‘social credit score’ program were to be implemented in America by the US Government, would the program violate American citizen’s constitutional rights? If so, what rights would be violated and what amendments or constitutional clauses establish those rights in the first place?

Constitutional rights aside, would you want to live in a country with a social scoring system?  Why or why not?

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the articles this piece was originally sourced from are available here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

and here: www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit

Bonus Question / Consider This (and only respond directly to the final question): If you were forced to live in a country with a social scoring system, what protections would you put in place to make sure everyone was treated fairly by the system?  For example: If someone proposed points should be awarded to people that participating in sports, would that be fair to a quadriplegic? Should quadriplegics get bonus points? Is that fair for people that just don’t like sports?   This sounds challenging, but in the context of the questions above, pretend that somehow the system could be made to be fair: what are the first 3 steps you would take?

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

Seriously Stupid: Swatting a School Shooting Survivor

A quick note for the olds: Swatting is when emergency services 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.

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?

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/us/hogg-family-home-swatting-incident-trnd/index.html

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

D’oh! Nuts! Donut Champion Dunked Into A Jail Cell

Pictured: Artist’s interpretation of suspect being detained at the local jail…or not.

A North Carolina man was arrested for stealing and breaking into a Dunkin’ Donuts. According to police he is being charged with felonies including breaking and entering and larceny (meaning the theft of someone’s property). It wasn’t specified if any donuts were taken during the theft.

In 2014, the same man won a donut eating contest while being wanted on suspicion of multiple break-ins. After competing in the donut event, Bradley Hardison (the suspect) prompted closer watch by investigators which led to him being convicted. Ironically, he won the contest at the police department’s “National Night Out Against Crime” event.

Hardison was held on a $7,000 bond for his latest charges of breaking and entering and larceny.

What punishments could Hardison face for the breaking and entering charge? What punishments could he face for the larceny charge? Keep in mind that they are both felonies.

Explain your answers with detail. If you would like more information before responding to our questions, the article this piece was originally sourced from is available here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bradley-hardison-elizabeth-city-donut-eating-winner-charged-arrested-dunkin-donuts/

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

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!

What consequences could the restaurant face if it is found to be violating NYC health code?

Can videos posted to social media be used as admissible evidence if charges are filed?

Do you think the case is being handled differently, or should be handled differently since a celebrity is involved?

Explain your answers and for more details you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:  http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/01/31/salt-bae-no-longer-salting-with-bare-hands-amid-concerns-over-nyc-health-violations.html

Contributed by- J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

Pizza For Parking

Pizza is one of the most universally enjoyed dishes and a food most people won’t turn down. An alleged story about the temptation to eat the baked dough topped with delicious proteins, cheeses and veggies ended up costing four officers their jobs.

Jeff Clegg is one of the officers who was fired.  Clegg claimed that employees of a pizza shop would park illegally and place menus visibly in their car window.  When a parking enforcement officer saw the menu, they were not to write a ticket.  If a parking ticket did happen to be issued, it was usually voided.

Clegg’s allegations also say that the officers didn’t write tickets to the employees for over two years because of the deal.  Apparently the parking enforcers would frequent the pizza shop so often that they were on a first name basis with the workers.  Some of the officers would even enter through the back and just grab their own meal!

The officers were in a situation where they could have issued 3 tickets a day to the pizza parlor’s problematic parkers, with each ticket having a fine of $25.  At first, $25 per ticket may not seem like that large of an amount.  Over the course of 2 years however, $75 in parking tickets each day would have amounted to over $19,000 in missed fines!

Following an investigation by a city official who’d heard about Clegg’s allegations about the parking-for-pizza scheme, Clegg and three other officers were fired.  Shortly after that happened, the pizza restaurant’s owner complained directly to the city in person about how upset he was about the officers being fired.  At the same time though, he denied that there was ever a free meal deal happening.

A second investigation was launched by a police agency, but no charges ended up being filed against the pizza parlor’s staff nor the 4 officers that had lost their jobs.

If charges had ended up being filed as a result of the investigations, what laws would the enforcement officers have been accused of breaking and what penalties might they face?  What charges could be brought against the pizza restaurant owner, and what penalties might he be dealt? In answering both of those questions, keep in mind that this deal could have cost the city up to $19,000 in missed fines.

Suppose the allegations were eventually proven to not be true though: Could the officers take action against the city for being fired over false accusations?   If you think they could, explain how you think the officers would benefit from suing the city – what would they get out of it?   If you don’t think they could, explain what makes you think they’re prevented from filing a case against their employers.

You can read more about the case below:

http://kutv.com/news/local/slc-parking-enforcement-officers-fired-for-taking-kickbacks-for-not-writing-tickets

Contributed by - J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

The Case Of the Missing Thumb

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 a sweater party they were holding!

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?”

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!

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?

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 and what charges could the US government face?

Can you think of a time when someone’s quick thinking got them into more trouble than good? Tell us your story in the comments and check out the original article from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/us/terracotta-warrior-thumb/index.html

 Contributed by  - J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

Welcome to Volcano Land

Hawaii is known for a number of landscapes like beautiful beaches and volcanoes (including three active ones!) With one currently erupting there is a great chance that lava could reach the ocean. When it reaches the sea, the lava cools down and hardens creating more land called lava extensions.

This geological event leads us to a pretty interesting legal question: Since it was created by a natural event, who exactly owns this new land? Before we look for an answer, let’s get some background on where this debate began:

In 1955 a volcano called Kilauea erupted and created over 7.9 acres of new land. A local family purchased previously-existing land next to where the lava extension had formed. The new owners assumed that they had full rights to the recently created parts, and not just the initial land they purchased.   They even paid property taxes and planted trees on it!

Following an eruption in the same area in 1960, the issue of who the land really belonged to ended up being taken to court.   Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ended up ordering the land owners to leave the lava-extension, and then issued the land-rights for the lava extension to the state.

The court ruled that the land created by the volcanic activity was for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”; instead of only allowing one family or person to use the land as they please, everyone gets to use it!.

Since the court ruling established that land created by lava belongs to the state, that meant that all of the land created by Kilauea’s eruption in 1955 belongs to the state of Hawaii. As a result, it was not just the one family and their bit of land that was affected by the court case’s outcome.

 Essay Question Time!

Explain your answers, don’t just reply with yes or no! Essay Question 1:

Do you feel like the court ruled the right way?  Should a person who lives near lava-created land have the first chance to purchase it from the state before the government can decide to do something else with the new property?  Would your opinion change if person wanting to purchase the lava-extended land lived in a house 20 feet away?  Would it matter how long they’d been there – say….20 years?  

Essay Question 2: In consideration of the questions brought up in number 1 above, tell us – Is a court ruling good enough, or should specific-laws be created to manage lava extensions in Hawaii?  If the court ruling seems good enough to you, tell us why there shouldn’t be laws that are more specific.  If the court ruling isn’t good enough, tell us what laws you would create and why you would shape them that way.

Essay Question 3: What about the government though?  Hawaii’s State Supreme Court ruled the land was created for the “use and enjoyment of all the people”.  Based on the wording of the court ruling, should the government be allowed to sell the new land to a business or individual, or should it be forced to use the land for a park, community center, or something along those lines?  Tell us what you think and why you feel that way.    

 You can find more info about Hawaiian volcanic eruptions creating land and the ownership debate that follows here:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywen3y/who-owns-the-new-land-created-by-a-volcano-in-hawaii-kilauea-big-island

 Contributed by - J. Plummer

[pbtrnews]

Red is the new Black

Fashion designers often have a unique distinction on their products- a look or style that they are known for- and Christian Louboutin is no exception. For over 25 years Louboutin has made the bottoms of his fancy dress shoes an unmistakable vivid red and now there is question of whether or not he can trademark the color. His company had even trademarked “the color red (Pantone 18 1663TP) applied to the sole of a shoe” (like the shoes in the picture above).

In 2012, his company filed a lawsuit against Dutch company Van Haren that had started selling high heels with red soles similar to his. Louboutin filed the lawsuit claiming that the shoes “infringed on his brand’s trademark for footwear”,   (meaning the red soles on fancy dress shoes).

The other company (Van Hare) was forced to stop selling their red-soled shoes after Louboutin sued them for trademark infringement.  However the brand’s lawyers weren’t having it, and fought the case until it reached the European Court of Justice (meaning the case was heard by several lower courts first).

Under European Union law, shapes typically cannot be trademarked (so the design of a shoe might not be able to be legally protected, but a specific logo of a company still could be).  According to a court official, Louboutin’s red soles are part of a shape (and not something like a logo).  Because of the rules about shapes, his request for trademark protection could be refused.

Fashion designers fighting over colors in court might seem very European, but America has seen its share of legal battles over colors too!  For example, in 2014 the United States Federal Court decided that AT&T was no longer allowed to use certain shades of pink after a lawsuit with T-Mobile.

AT&T had come out with a new service called Aio wireless that used a shade of plum in all of its advertising.  While it wasn’t the exact same color as T-Mobile’s better-known magenta, it was close enough for a lawsuit to be filed  by T-Mobile (and won).

CONSIDER THIS: No matter how the court case turned out, should Louboutin be able to trademark soles of shoes with a specific shade of red?   Maybe you don’t care about fashion, but what if Nike made a sweet pair of red-soled running kicks: Should Louboutin be able to sue Nike if they did that – why or why not?

IN DEPTH: At what point under law should a design become eligible to be trademarked? What if a color does become eligible to be trademarked, who should get the rights to the color in cases like Louboutin vs. Van Haren?

Let us know what you think in the comments and you can read more about the issue in The New York Times here:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/business/christian-louboutin-shoes-red-trademark.html

[pbtrnews]

Officer Goes Viral For PSA Law Video About...

Viewed over 11 million times, one Indiana law enforcement officer’s fun video about a commonly ignored law has gone Viral.  Indiana’s State Police Sgt. John Perrine was getting frustrated after witnessing numerous drivers failing to signal before turning or changing lanes, and decided to do something about it.

Rather than spending time issuing ticket after ticket in hopes of word getting out, Sgt. Perrine created a surprising video discussing the technological advances and fantastic benefits of using turn signal technologies.  The amusing video is a friendly reminder to use your turn signal, but also that officers are people who like to have fun at work when they can just like the rest of us!

There’s more to the story than an officer being creative while on the job: Sgt. Perrine is a Public Information Officer in his region, meaning one of his duties is to serve as a communication point in the community. Police departments throughout the country - including Nevada - have officers like Sgt. Perrine in place to help build relationships between officers and the communities they serve. 

You can find the video here: https://www.facebook.com/1702864376662853/videos/1873561542926468/

When you’re done watching Sgt. Perrine’s fun creation, come back here and tell us your stories about officers that have done something fun and unique in your community!

[pbtrnews]

FAA Investigates Harrison Ford After He Flies Over Jetliner Awaiting Takeoff

You might be able to complete the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs, but that doesn't mean you'll outrun the FAA's laws and regulation!

In February of 2017, NPR reported that the FAA would be investigating Harrison Ford for flying his plane over a jetliner that had been waiting to takeoff - a violation of FAA safety procedures.  The incident occurred as a result of Ford landing on the wrong runway.  While he may have played a rebel-with-a-cause pilot that got away with everything in Star Wars while acting in the roll of Han Solo, in real life Mr. Ford is as subject to the law and FAA procedures as much as any other pilot. 

What’s a story you recall where a celebrity had a run-in with the law?  Did you think the person received special treatment or harsher treatment because they were celebrities?  Let us know of a story you recall and your thoughts on the matter in the comments, and read more about this story in the original article it was sourced from on NPR’s website here:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/15/515328041/faa-investigating-after-harrison-ford-flies-over-jetliner-awaiting-takeoff

[pbtrnews]

Dairy Queen Manager Charged w/ Manslaughter in Bullied Teen’s Suicide

In Missouri, the criminal courts are being used to send a message about bullying. An unfortunate case of bullying led to suicide, and the case surrounding that incident could change the way bullying is addressed in schools, workplaces, and criminal courts across the country.

Kenny Suttner was 17 when he died as a result of suicide in December 2016.  After an inquiry into his death, over 20 witnesses reported incidents of Kenny being bullied at home and while he worked at a local Dairy Queen.  The bullying incidents at work included Kenny being forced to lie on his stomach to clean under machines - a practice that wasn’t required of other employees at the location.

Harley Branham (Kenny’s manager at the Dairy Queen) was charged with involuntary manslaughter for her involvement in Kenny’s suicide since she was the one who required him to clean the store differently from his coworkers. Additional findings have placed some of the responsibility for Kenny’s death with the school district for failing to act on Kenny being bullied at school.

This story is still developing, and both the school district and Harley Branham may be found to be innocent in the end.  This piece has been written not to place blame on the accused parties, but rather to point out the possible criminal consequences of bullying.

While we plan to report on updates to this story as they come in, we would like to hear your thoughts about bullying, reporting bullying, and the consequences of bullying in the comments.  If you’d like to learn more about this case before we have the chance to update you on it, you may find the original story at ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dairy-queen-manager-charged-manslaughter-bullied-teens-suicide/story?id=45498992