With the world passing by us faster and faster each day, many people don't get to take a seat and look at what they are, and what they have. This includes their rights. Some don't know all their rights, when others don't know them at all, and this can be very bad when it comes to important situations. A quick example would be when a police officer wants to search your residence. If the police officer wants to search, he/she must have a warrant issues especially for your home. This is crucial, because if you know that you have illegal substances or guns or anything illegal, this knowledge of knowing to ask the officer for a warrant is key, because it could save your butt, big time.
People these days don't realize how important it is to have rights. No one even thinks about it anymore. Everyone figures that they are secure and don't need to worry about all the harm happening to others, when it can happen to you in an instant. I bet if you walked up to anyone in the street and asked them what their rights were in certain instances, they would have no clue. Also, if for a prank, you were to have a police officer randomly pretend to arrest people, people would panic when asked to state their rights. They may get some, but I doubt all.
My point with all of this is that people in the world today really have more freedom than they think. If anything, people abuse it without even knowing, and it becomes a problem when it is needed at most. Another example could be that you get pulled over by a cop, and he just so happens is having a rough night, and takes it all out you, possibly getting physical. If you know your rights, you can get more money when you take him to court, but you could also miss a lot of things that happened if you don't know what your rights are doing to defend you. There are so many cases of abuse, especially by police officers, or legal officials, where they figure that stupid people who get into trouble with them in the first place don't know anything, and they can get away with anything they do. What's the best, is when they get surprised, and get sued for millions for assault & battery or abuse. Most of the time however, the suspect will get his way with the knowledge of the victim; who, not knowing their rights, will get sued for the little things, and not get the full price to pay.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Fifth Blog: Family Law
Imagine the scenario:
A man, (Jack) and a woman (Jill) are happily married and are relatively wealthy. One day, the mother comes home to find her beloved husband having an affair with another woman. This hasn't been the first time, but the wife decides that it will be the last. Immediately, the wife files for divorce, and everything goes fine, until the subject of their child, (Jack Jr.) who is only 14, comes up in discussion. Of course, Jill wants custody of Jack Jr., and Jack Sr. doesn't have a problem with it. Then Jill realizes that all the money in their past relationship came from Jack Sr., and now Jill and Jack Jr. have no money. Jill wants Jack Sr. to pay for child support, so Jack Sr. gives his minimum, and then elopes with his new wife to an unknown state and had many, many children.
So what happens? Or even more importantly, what should happen?
When a family gets split up, it's normally because of a stubborn partner. They either do something stupid, like have an affair, or gamble too much, or drink too much. These are the main reasons why families split. The problem is, is that what if the partner that's leaving doesn't want custody for the child and to pay for the child, and has all the money. I think that no matter what, both parents are responsible for the child, and need to give equal efforts to help that child. As far as I know, it's not only the other partner's life is getting ruined, but it's equally, or even more hurtful and effective to the child. Adults can re-marry, but children can't get a new real father or mother.
Another issue is that when the parents get split, one will only want to pay the minimum dollars for their child. This means that the child may only have three pairs of clothing, and the same lunch of bread with peanut butter for the rest of their lives. AND THIS IS LEGAL!!! It's ridiculous first off, and second, down right distasteful. The father loved the child, and should always, even if the wife wants a divorce. Why does the father not want to support the child just because the mother was a heavy drinker? It makes no sense, but yet, it still happens all the time.
A man, (Jack) and a woman (Jill) are happily married and are relatively wealthy. One day, the mother comes home to find her beloved husband having an affair with another woman. This hasn't been the first time, but the wife decides that it will be the last. Immediately, the wife files for divorce, and everything goes fine, until the subject of their child, (Jack Jr.) who is only 14, comes up in discussion. Of course, Jill wants custody of Jack Jr., and Jack Sr. doesn't have a problem with it. Then Jill realizes that all the money in their past relationship came from Jack Sr., and now Jill and Jack Jr. have no money. Jill wants Jack Sr. to pay for child support, so Jack Sr. gives his minimum, and then elopes with his new wife to an unknown state and had many, many children.
So what happens? Or even more importantly, what should happen?
When a family gets split up, it's normally because of a stubborn partner. They either do something stupid, like have an affair, or gamble too much, or drink too much. These are the main reasons why families split. The problem is, is that what if the partner that's leaving doesn't want custody for the child and to pay for the child, and has all the money. I think that no matter what, both parents are responsible for the child, and need to give equal efforts to help that child. As far as I know, it's not only the other partner's life is getting ruined, but it's equally, or even more hurtful and effective to the child. Adults can re-marry, but children can't get a new real father or mother.
Another issue is that when the parents get split, one will only want to pay the minimum dollars for their child. This means that the child may only have three pairs of clothing, and the same lunch of bread with peanut butter for the rest of their lives. AND THIS IS LEGAL!!! It's ridiculous first off, and second, down right distasteful. The father loved the child, and should always, even if the wife wants a divorce. Why does the father not want to support the child just because the mother was a heavy drinker? It makes no sense, but yet, it still happens all the time.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Fourth Blog: 12 Fidgety Men
This blog is a complaint and an idea that the government might want to think about and apply to its "amazing" court system.
A perfect example can be found in the film, "12 Angry Men". My question is, "Why does the government make everyone serve as a juror?" As you can this in this film, there are some people in the jury who don't want to be there. An example is the juror who wants to get the thinking over with and make it to his seats at the baseball game. He doesn't give anything about this case, so he figures he will vote the majority to get out fast. This is bad, unfair, and dishonest. In this case, the defendant isn't getting a fair trial. Not only because of this juror who wants to get out for the game, but the others who don't want to actually think about it and only look at the cover of the story, and vote in the favor of death.
My argument is that the jury needs to be thought through better. The government should keep doing what they are doing with picking names out of the hat to pick whose turn it is, but after that, they shouldn't put that person right up on the jury stand. Honestly, some people really don't want to be a juror, and along with that comes an attitude. This person will be sulking the whole time and then not make good judgment, or just get influenced by someone else and vote guilty/not guilty with no reason. This may sound like not such a big deal, but one vote can change everything when a 12-vote system like the jury uses is in order.
What the government should do, is they should ask the person if they want to be a juror of the case. The case will always end up right if you have all 12 jurors actually wanting to be there and to make a difference. If one, or half of the jury wants to get out to go watch the Pistons, or get back to whatever they were doing at home, he/she is going to try and get out as fast as possible, without taking the responsibility at hand, which is making a verdict on someone's life.
Luckily, in this particular case, not only was there one juror who actually wanted to stay and dissect the evidence of the case, but even when constantly shot down by more proof, he kept going at what he believed in, and in the end was rewarded with his fellow jurors to his side, and being able to set the innocent boy free, rather than sending him innocently to his death.
Comments on the movie, I thought it was great. It was actually the second time I've seen it, but it's been awhile so it was mostly new, but I did know that it was going to end up how it did. I liked Juror #1 the best, he was such a funny guy. Anyone like a cough drop?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Third Blog: Wrongful Decisions Damage Lives
I would first like to say something about the radio interview from NPR with that lady, whom I forget the name, (please excuse me) who was mislead to have HIV, and then treated for an inexistent germ in her body for almost 10 years. This is disgusting, appalling, amazing, and sad at the same time. First off; shame to the doctor who misdiagnosed her. If I were that doctor, I would be completely embarrassed and would never want to show my face in public again. This lady went to pain and suffering and near death for nothing! This isn't the type of case where someone sat in jail for awhile when that person wasn't the felon. This was physical and mental hell for this lady.
It's amazingly disgusting how this doctor could, one, screw up on the test and claim that the lady had a deathly disease, and two, to refuse to re-test the patient. May I ask: What's the harm in a retest? People make mistakes about things all the time, and the simple solution is to try again. But no. This doctor for some stupid reason decided not to, and has this poor woman suffer for 9 years! This woman was basically loading up her body with drugs that weren't doing anything. Of course, if a patient were to have HIV or AIDS, there would be side affects, some like this woman had. But when you don't have the disease, not only are you just throwing in useless drugs, you are getting unwanted and unneeded pains and they are worse!
Now, there isn't much to say in this blog except to bash this stupid doctor who did this, so I'll start off here by stating some opinions to some of my own questions.
1) What proper monetary award is sufficient for this pain and suffering?
I believe there is none. How could you repay or get back 10 years of someone's life? While you were confident about a disease and didn't bother to listen to your patient, your patient was suffering every day of her life for almost a decade. You can't give this person money. What is she to do with it? Normally when you want to give back to someone, it would be something that represented what happened. Let's say that there was a car accident. One would repay this by buying the victim a new car. Or, if there was stolen property, then the robber would repay you with the stolen item, or maybe more. You can't repay someone 10 years of wasted, painful days.
2) Whose at fault / Who gets punished?
The doctor, of course. Now that it is proven that that woman didn't have HIV, the doctor has no argument. Maybe as first, when the patient wanted a re-test, then the doctor could have said that the side effects could include depression, and that the patient was going crazy. Well, of course the side effects didn't happen, no doubt, but the fact that the side effects shouldn't have happened because the patient didn't have the disease is a different story.
All-in-all, this was the saddest story I've heard all year from the news. How someone could be treated for a deadly disease in which they don't have, but still have to go through the pain and suffering and plus, even when they shouldn't be.
There isn't much else to say, but the fact that that doctor needs to be reevaluated not only in medical school, but maybe in an asylum too?
It's amazingly disgusting how this doctor could, one, screw up on the test and claim that the lady had a deathly disease, and two, to refuse to re-test the patient. May I ask: What's the harm in a retest? People make mistakes about things all the time, and the simple solution is to try again. But no. This doctor for some stupid reason decided not to, and has this poor woman suffer for 9 years! This woman was basically loading up her body with drugs that weren't doing anything. Of course, if a patient were to have HIV or AIDS, there would be side affects, some like this woman had. But when you don't have the disease, not only are you just throwing in useless drugs, you are getting unwanted and unneeded pains and they are worse!
Now, there isn't much to say in this blog except to bash this stupid doctor who did this, so I'll start off here by stating some opinions to some of my own questions.
1) What proper monetary award is sufficient for this pain and suffering?
I believe there is none. How could you repay or get back 10 years of someone's life? While you were confident about a disease and didn't bother to listen to your patient, your patient was suffering every day of her life for almost a decade. You can't give this person money. What is she to do with it? Normally when you want to give back to someone, it would be something that represented what happened. Let's say that there was a car accident. One would repay this by buying the victim a new car. Or, if there was stolen property, then the robber would repay you with the stolen item, or maybe more. You can't repay someone 10 years of wasted, painful days.
2) Whose at fault / Who gets punished?
The doctor, of course. Now that it is proven that that woman didn't have HIV, the doctor has no argument. Maybe as first, when the patient wanted a re-test, then the doctor could have said that the side effects could include depression, and that the patient was going crazy. Well, of course the side effects didn't happen, no doubt, but the fact that the side effects shouldn't have happened because the patient didn't have the disease is a different story.
All-in-all, this was the saddest story I've heard all year from the news. How someone could be treated for a deadly disease in which they don't have, but still have to go through the pain and suffering and plus, even when they shouldn't be.
There isn't much else to say, but the fact that that doctor needs to be reevaluated not only in medical school, but maybe in an asylum too?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Second Blog: Gun Show
In commemoration of MLK Day and the man, Dr. King himself, a radio station, (FM 98 WJLB which is 97.9 FM, a Detroit-based station) had an "event". On MLK Day they announced on the radio that they wanted to clean up the streets. No, they didn't mean that they were going to get together with brooms and dustpans. The station wanted everyone to come to a location and bring all their guns. Your thinking this is crazy, aren't you. "Cleaning up" the streets meant trying to lower the crime rate. Of course, no one is going to give up their gun on MLK Day for nothing. The station however offered a $50 gift certificate (I can't recall to where) to each person for how many guns they brought in. I have some points I would like to share regarding this "event".
First off, I think that this was a dumb idea. Just think about it. People in Detroit don't own guns because they are going out hunting. These guys use them to kill people! Maybe they call it self defense, but honestly, these guns are for ending arguments or fights. They think it's a legit way, and it's practically normal for all of them. So instead of letting the spread of killings, why don't we bring all the bad guys with guns to one small location and have them turn them in, for some cash! Great idea!
My second thought of this and why this is a bad idea is because of the money. Most handguns (I think) can be bought for less than $50. Meaning, some guy could go out, buy a cheap gun for $30, turn it in, and then take the money he made and buy an even better gun. Or someone could take the money by giving up a gun, and assuming he has more than one, go out and buy drugs. Of course the argument is that it doesn't matter what he does with the money, all that does matter is one less gun is off the streets.
My third and final thought on why this was a bad idea is because now that these guys with guns see that their buddies are turning in theirs, they now know who to target, or who is being a "good guy". Part of being cool in the hood is having money, a nice ride, and maybe a gun. When you see your "brother" giving up his gun, you know that he is "out". Also, if someone sees a guy giving up a gun, you become more suspicious of him and might want to watch him more closely, or, like they say in the mafia, "take care of him".
All in all, this "event" was definitely in good intention of "cleaning up" the streets of Detroit, so I'm hoping that none of those guys who turned in their guns thought of all this before hand.
First off, I think that this was a dumb idea. Just think about it. People in Detroit don't own guns because they are going out hunting. These guys use them to kill people! Maybe they call it self defense, but honestly, these guns are for ending arguments or fights. They think it's a legit way, and it's practically normal for all of them. So instead of letting the spread of killings, why don't we bring all the bad guys with guns to one small location and have them turn them in, for some cash! Great idea!
My second thought of this and why this is a bad idea is because of the money. Most handguns (I think) can be bought for less than $50. Meaning, some guy could go out, buy a cheap gun for $30, turn it in, and then take the money he made and buy an even better gun. Or someone could take the money by giving up a gun, and assuming he has more than one, go out and buy drugs. Of course the argument is that it doesn't matter what he does with the money, all that does matter is one less gun is off the streets.
My third and final thought on why this was a bad idea is because now that these guys with guns see that their buddies are turning in theirs, they now know who to target, or who is being a "good guy". Part of being cool in the hood is having money, a nice ride, and maybe a gun. When you see your "brother" giving up his gun, you know that he is "out". Also, if someone sees a guy giving up a gun, you become more suspicious of him and might want to watch him more closely, or, like they say in the mafia, "take care of him".
All in all, this "event" was definitely in good intention of "cleaning up" the streets of Detroit, so I'm hoping that none of those guys who turned in their guns thought of all this before hand.
Monday, January 14, 2008
First Blog: Welcome
First off, I would like you welcome the newbies to Ms. Linden's class. For those of who did not have Ms. Linden for 1st semester, I greatly feel bad for you. You all have a lot to make up, so I suggest you enjoy every last minute in her class, and if you don't want to, you will probably end up having a blast anyways, because, she is just that sweet.
Since it is the first blog of the year, there honestly isn't much to talk about except for what's on my mind and the minds of Americans...across America. The basic laws and rights of us citizens is always floating around in our heads and being Americans, we always want more, and we always want it fair and right! Some topics floating around today can be the age limits for drinking, driving, but hopefully not together; or the age to vote or the age for the army.
Are these ages really fair? Did the person who made this law think of all those thirsty party hard teens that need something to drink? Did that person think of those knowledge-thirsty teens who want to become more powerful in the world and vote? I guess not, because the age limits now-a-days are pretty high. Even getting into a decent movie these days in impossible, because you would have to take your mom, and then it's not funny, or pretty.
What I'm here to talk about to you today; briefly, is these ages, and disguise maybe an alternate age, and I ask if I think this is reasonable. Feel free to flood the comments, because I know you all will =).
Driving age - 16 years
Voting age - 18 years
Drinking age - 21 years
My first argument, which is going out of order, is the voting age. Hopefully when you are at the age of 18, you will be an upper class man in high school or almost graduating. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!! As you can see, I am learning about the Presidents and government NOW, and I have a bit before high school! Not when I'm slacking off in 11th/12th grade! I think that the voting age should be way down, to maybe 16 or 17. Us young students are in our prime now, and when we want to learn about our country and what rights we have to control it, that's when we have the most knowledge of it and when we want to vote.
The second issue which has come to my attention is drinking. I promise to all of you, I have drunk a cup of beer total in my lifetime career. I don't drink, and I will put that out there, so why should I mind the age? I promise to all of you I won't become some heavy drinker at the age of 21, so I have no reason to argue this. I was once listening on the radio though, and they were letting people call in and give their opinion on whether the age should be risen or lowered, and one person called in, saying: "The drinking age should be lowered to 16 because then the teen (or new driver) knows how it feels to be intoxicated or under the influence and hopefully when they get behind the wheel, they will remember that and not drink and drive. I thought that this was a good comment, and I'll let it up to you to decide what you think of this.
My last argument, driving age, will not be argued. I believe that this is a good, ripe age. It's the time when the mind and body is hungry for freedom from carpooling or having your embarrassing mother drive you to school everyday. The teen's mind is always open to learning new things, especially driving, because fort once in your life you get to do something on your own! Sheesh! This age is perfect, but some may think it's on the young side. Before I took driver's training, I thought I was going to be too young, seeing my sister driving around...oy vey... But after I took it, I realized driving is a breeze and the time to drive is now!
Haha, I sound like a campaigning president with that last sentence.
I am Eitan Mendelson, and I approve this blog, (and I hope I get your vote...) I realized that that part is new to the end of those commercials, correct me if I'm wrong.
Since it is the first blog of the year, there honestly isn't much to talk about except for what's on my mind and the minds of Americans...across America. The basic laws and rights of us citizens is always floating around in our heads and being Americans, we always want more, and we always want it fair and right! Some topics floating around today can be the age limits for drinking, driving, but hopefully not together; or the age to vote or the age for the army.
Are these ages really fair? Did the person who made this law think of all those thirsty party hard teens that need something to drink? Did that person think of those knowledge-thirsty teens who want to become more powerful in the world and vote? I guess not, because the age limits now-a-days are pretty high. Even getting into a decent movie these days in impossible, because you would have to take your mom, and then it's not funny, or pretty.
What I'm here to talk about to you today; briefly, is these ages, and disguise maybe an alternate age, and I ask if I think this is reasonable. Feel free to flood the comments, because I know you all will =).
Driving age - 16 years
Voting age - 18 years
Drinking age - 21 years
My first argument, which is going out of order, is the voting age. Hopefully when you are at the age of 18, you will be an upper class man in high school or almost graduating. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!! As you can see, I am learning about the Presidents and government NOW, and I have a bit before high school! Not when I'm slacking off in 11th/12th grade! I think that the voting age should be way down, to maybe 16 or 17. Us young students are in our prime now, and when we want to learn about our country and what rights we have to control it, that's when we have the most knowledge of it and when we want to vote.
The second issue which has come to my attention is drinking. I promise to all of you, I have drunk a cup of beer total in my lifetime career. I don't drink, and I will put that out there, so why should I mind the age? I promise to all of you I won't become some heavy drinker at the age of 21, so I have no reason to argue this. I was once listening on the radio though, and they were letting people call in and give their opinion on whether the age should be risen or lowered, and one person called in, saying: "The drinking age should be lowered to 16 because then the teen (or new driver) knows how it feels to be intoxicated or under the influence and hopefully when they get behind the wheel, they will remember that and not drink and drive. I thought that this was a good comment, and I'll let it up to you to decide what you think of this.
My last argument, driving age, will not be argued. I believe that this is a good, ripe age. It's the time when the mind and body is hungry for freedom from carpooling or having your embarrassing mother drive you to school everyday. The teen's mind is always open to learning new things, especially driving, because fort once in your life you get to do something on your own! Sheesh! This age is perfect, but some may think it's on the young side. Before I took driver's training, I thought I was going to be too young, seeing my sister driving around...oy vey... But after I took it, I realized driving is a breeze and the time to drive is now!
Haha, I sound like a campaigning president with that last sentence.
I am Eitan Mendelson, and I approve this blog, (and I hope I get your vote...) I realized that that part is new to the end of those commercials, correct me if I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
