I'd just like to add. That whole "waiting 24 hours to report someone missing" thing is really dangerous. If you believe that someone is missing or has been taken etc. Those first 24 hours are really crucial to finding them. It gets exponentially harder the longer you wait
@@jen6294 Most people consider missing children as completely different from missing adults. With children, they are immediately extremely concerned. With adults, you think - maybe there's some reason they aren't where you expected, or why you haven't heard from them.
I don't think the myth was ever that it was a hard rule, but rather that if someone disappeared for less than 24 hours, absent evidence of a crime, police didn't want to take a report because there's a chance they're not really missing. If you saw them shoved into a van, that's a completely different situatuion than they didn't come home last night. (EDIT) Of course, different rules apply for children. One of my classmates in Elementary School missed his bus and tried to walk to school but didn't know the route and got lost. The police were absolutely involved due to his age and he was found safely.
Exactly. This "must be missing for at least 24 hours" is really grinding my gears. If your spouse is home from work by 4pm every single day and then one day they aren't yet home at 8pm, and you can't reach them on their cell phone and not at their work place, of course you'd go to the police and I really doubt they would be like "oh, let's just wait for another 20 hours, OK?"
Even if the rule existed, I'd imagine they'd take the report but wait up to 24 hours before acting on it, rather than refusing the report altogether. If that makes sense, I'm not a lawyer
For number 6, this is absolutely why people are always saying "do not say anything when being questioned by the police, invoke your right to remain silent, and demand to speak to a lawyer." When they say 'anything you say can be used against you' they mean *anything* this includes things they tricked or manipulated you into saying.
@@richardwallis9374 Yeah, I'd argue this is really bad and inexcusable. You put the suspect under duress and _make_ them confess. It's manipulation and you basically can't know if the confession is honest anymore, a confession made under such circumstances where the suspect is made to believe they have no choice or face worse consequences whether it's true or not should absolutely not be accepted by the court. Same with cases where they interrogate the suspect for days on end until they become delirious and just needs it to end no matter what (which I would argue is mental torture). If the prosecutors have to resort to such tactics, it should hurt their case, not win it. The system doesn't care about putting the culprit behind bars, it cares about blaming _someone_ .
@@johnroe643 Make up? Oh no. Because while the police can lie to you, there are laws that you cannot lie to certain law enforcement officials (the exact kind escapes me at the moment).
answers the question with a question that affirms you are a police officer, while keeping it vague: " Sure, isn´t everyone a cop these days with their cellphones... .. ... .. .. haha?"
walks away sulking, assured that the 6 back-up Task Force officers will confiscate all cash and most product , pump 34 bullets in the dealers limp torso and plant the illegal firearm within a fingers grasp of his defensive gestures.
may not be original, but my god did i laugh too much. the dad jokes are becoming funny, i guess it's time to start finding a wife and make some babies.
I say this all the time, and people STILL insist that if you ask a cop if they're undercover they have to tell you. One thing I get a lot is "They can say things like 'Do I look like a cop?'" No Kevin, they can say "I'm not a cop." If they couldn't, they'd only catch the very dumbest criminals.
They can lie to you, what they can't do is attempt to persuade you to commit a crime. Even undercover they couldn't for example be the boss, or even an under boss as everyone working for them is then been told to break the law. This is entrapment, and is actually illegal.
"You have to wait 24 hours to report a missing person." This myth is actually one of the more dangerous ones, I have known and heard of some cops that actually believe this, including one case I heard of where someone went to report a missing person and the police on duty actually told them they had to wait 24 hours.
This happened with my schizophrenic veteran brother. They refused to do anything, saying that he was "an adult" and could be found easily. His phone and wallet were at my house. The locals refused to help us, the state put the APB out right away.
I have been told this by a cop lol my brother ran away and the cop who showed up literally said this not sure where he got that from. It was the 90,s and I think he may have just been lazy but my brother came back either way no thanks to that dude
@@nandee1fuery I'm glad you thought of going to the state. I get alerts for missing "vulnerable adults" (such as people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, or dementia) on a regular basis and they are often from the state Highway Patrol.
Remember the three Ups when dealing with police.Give Up, don't run, Shut Up, don't talk, and Lawyer Up, no matter what. Follow the Ups and it won't get you out of trouble, but you won't get yourself into more than you already are
That's certainly how it works in movies and on TV. However, in the police station when dealing with missing person reports, particularly where the missing is an adult. 99.9% end with the person coming home an hour later. They just dont make TV shows about those outcomes.
Fun fact: I've been reported missing after around 30 minutes. They didn't launch an investigation, but the police were told to keep their eyes peeled. I wasn't missing. I went for a walk, forgot to tell my dad, and my phone died.
Hey, at least your dad cares about you. You should find peace in the fact that if you ever were to go missing, an investigation would be launched quickly.
@@immortalsun actually, it wasn't his idea... someone at the rec center (where I was supposed to be) overheard him and said that they needed to tell the police lol
When I was a little kid, I was reported missing because i was playing hide and seek at my friends house down the street, and fell asleep in their closet. They couldn't find me so they thought I went home without telling anyone, and they didn't tell my dad...
You covered my favorite legal myths. I've had so many potential clients who wanted to challenge a will because "there wasn't even a reading of will!" They're shocked when I tell them that's not a thing.
It’s still disturbing how much weight to given to eyewitness testimony to convict when it’s some of the worst evidence out there. It’s nothing more than somebody saying they saw something.
I think its cause a) the judicial system is old, and was created at a time before we knew how unreliable human memory is and b) most cases would have basically nothing to convict on if not for testimony.
While it is very flawed, it is very far from being "some of the worst evidence out there." Yhere are countless examples of circumstantial evidence that are much less reliable. "I saw Bill shoot Joe in the chest" Is certainly better than "Joe was murdered in his apartment and Bill lives on the same floor"
My dad is an excellent black jack player due to his ability to count cards. His proudest moment was when the manager of a local casino came up to him while playing, thanked him for his patronage, offered him a free at the casino steak house and then politely informed him that if he ever returned to the casino again he would be arrested for trespassing. He stopped gambling after that lol.
@@monelleny They can't bar you from playing, but they can limit you to the minimum bet, which eliminates any reason to count cards. Alternatively, they can short-shoe you (reshuffling very early in the shoe), which nearly eliminates the advantage of counting cards. Or they can kick you out under some pretense or whatever. Also, the games in Atlantic City are reputedly pretty bad for players anyway (e.g. 6-5 payout on blackjack instead of 3-2).
Literally all of this depends on the state the casino is located in. Every state has its own Gaming Commission that has its own laws/rules that the casinos have to follow.
Great video. I actually drafted New York's missing adults law. Until 2016, there was no state law requiring police to take reports of missing adults. Now, as long as there is reasonable concern for their safety, police are required to report the missing adult to the NCIC as they are for missing children.
So your the one who help create the PAPERS PLEASE for adults that just want disappear, be left alone and the commie govt grabs them in the name of the NWO controlling society
I had a pot dealer in college, and in our first transaction he said to me, "oh by the way, if you ask an undercover cop if they are police, they CAN say no." I told him I knew that, but thanks anyway.
I actually knew these. What surprises me is that in Frazier v. Cupp the confession wasn't thrown out since the defendant had previously asked for and not been given a lawyer.
I adreed with you. Once a person asks for a lawyer, all questions must stop regarding the case. Of course the cops can ask you if you need to use the bathroom. This may have been before the Miranda v. Arizona days.
Not sure how the line of questioning actually went in that case, but the term "suggesting" infers they said "Should I get a lawyer ?" and the police would usually answer with something like "Do you want a lawyer ?" If the suspect says yes, the interrogation has to conclude then and there, but if they reply anything that isn't a clear indication of that right, the interrogation can and will continue without further precision unless brought up again by the suspect. The police will ask you directly once, when you're read your rights, if you want a lawyer and that's when you should say "yes" and not say another word. If you don't, it is assumed you consent in waivering that right to proceed with the interrogation until you bring it back up.
That scene in Breaking Bad where Badger gets arrested by a cop after asking him whether he was a cop is one of the best scenes highlighting that last point😂
I think it's far more common for people to believe a much narrower version of the myth, which is that undercover cops cannot deny that they're cops when asked (obviously there couldn't be undercover cops at all if they weren't allowed to lie, period). I think it mainly comes from the movies, and it seems plausible to many people because it sounds like some kind of legal protection against entrapment.
@@iang0th I'm assuming that's what he meant, since that was the context in the video. It's still equally stupid though. Like I don't see how there's any logical sense behind the idea of "oh yeah, if someone asks if our undercover cop is undercover, he has to say yes." Granted, people who think that usually have rotted brains from all the drugs.
AFAIK while they can lie, what they're not allowed to do is misrepresent the content of the Law--i.e. they are liable if they falsely tell you that something legal is a crime or that something criminal is legal in an effort to induce you to commit an illegal act or to induce you to refrain from asserting your rights such as right to remain silent or right to an attorney.
More likely by people who are tired of people being too paranoid. My mother wanted to report me as missing multiple times already, when my phone died or I had no signal.
@@BrendanRader-n4p Which is the whole point as to why it is outrageous. That's all police interrogations are designed to do - not get at the truth, but just get a confession, so the cops can go back to their donuts and coffee.
This interrogation tactic has resulted in numerous cases of false confessions! A great reason why even innocent people should remain silent. Don't talk to cops any more than absolutely necessary to protect yourself and others.
0:50 - Chapter 1 - It's illegal to marry your cousin 2:45 - Chapter 2 - The will is only binding if it's read to you 6:10 - Chapter 3 - Counting cards is illegal 7:40 - Chapter 4 - You have to wait 24h to report a missing person 10:05 - Chapter 5 - You can't be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone 13:10 - Chapter 6 - The police can't lie to you 14:55 - End roll ads
@@visassess8607because then people skip larger portions of the video lol sometimes its beneficial but usually ends in lower watch time…like my most viewed video, probably 10 ppl commented the timestamp of the moment of the big reveal. didnt make me mad cuz i understand butttt kinda did at the same time 😂
As an English lawyer specialising in wills and probate I was only ever once asked to read the will. I explained it wasn't necessary but they insisted. They were a lovely family and there were no nasty surprises, everyone going away happy. The big legal lie I had to debunk several times was common-law marriage, or marriage by cohabitation and repute as it used to be called. There used to be a strong belief this was a thing, but the concept was abolished in 1753 in England and Wales. I came across a lady who went to see a divorce lawyer to seek a divorce, only for him to conclude after careful enquiry that she could not get a divorce because she had never actually been married.
Common-law marriage used to be -umm, common - in many USA states due to records getting lost over the years, but most of those were repealed in the 1960s-1970s because they didn't want those darn hippies getting the benefits of marriage just because they lived together for the required number of years (often seven). That was the irony of the Lee Marvin "palimony" case, had California not repealed their common-law marriage law, Lee and Michelle would have been considered married due to how long they had cohabited.
The myth of common-law marriage is indeed a persistent one. Despite being abolished in 1753 in England and Wales, many people still believe that living together for a certain period grants them the same legal rights as a married couple. It’s surprising how these misconceptions can lead to significant misunderstandings, like the case of the lady seeking a divorce without ever having been legally married.
Re: waiting 24hrs before reporting a missing person. Please don’t do that. The earlier you report, the better. If there’s someone missing, the searchers will want to know earlier rather than later.
But the thing is, that narrative has changed quite a while ago. What's said now is that if someone has been missing for that amount of time the chances that something really bad already happened to that person are very high.
Yeah, my dad taught me young that it's not illegal, so while watching this I was wondering if the whole pit boss throw you out / beat you up thing was a myth as well. I guess not.
Pit bosses aren’t going to beat you up, it’s not the 1950s or whenever the mob really completely ran a ton of Vegas casinos. In the 2010s and on, if you get caught counting (and you’re really an advantage player that is beating the casino then they’ll just either ban you from the casino or ban you from playing blackjack at that casino. Not gonna be any physical harm, but in the mob days that was a thing)…a lot of people “count” or think they’re good but they’re really still losing or at best breaking even. Or not betting properly while counting etc. Or even if they’re maybe counting, they’re degenerate gamblers and get tilted when they lose and their strategy goes out the window and they do really dumb, very -EV stuff to try and chase their losses or go gamble at high stakes in other games like roulette or craps. The casino will still want your business if you’re one of these people since you’re still going to end up losing a lot of money there. And ya it’s not illegal you won’t get arrested…unless like he said you’re using some sort of illegal devices or marking the cards in some way.
For the circumstantial evidence it made me think immediately it'd be hilariously awful if you like cut yourself kinda bad at a friend's place and had to go RIGHT before they were brutally murdered and the prosecutions like "The DNA evidence is beyond clear."
Oh something similar to that actually happened. A victim was murdered in an apartment and csi found blood, hair, fingerprints of another person in a lot of places inside the apartment unit. So this unidentified person was of course the prime suspect but turns out they were just the previous tenant and thankfully, they had a strong alibi during the night of the crime. If it wasn't for the alibi, i bet they'd be in the interrogation room longer.
@@snflwrchan8019 Well, that was the night I was in labor at NYU Langone... I'm trying to think what the strongest alibis would be. Labor in a hospital seems high.
@shinylilfish already imprisoned at the time is a solid alibi but in the same vien as giving birth in a hospital being in surgery under anesthetic, under supervised quarantine for certain drug or vaccine trials, and staying in a psychiatric unit.
@@snflwrchan8019 There was also a case were a guy was placed by DNA at the murder scene, but also had an ironclad alibi, being at a hospital when it happened. Turned out the paramedics who took the guy to the hospital also were on site at the murder scene and somehow contaminated it.
Holy shit, I was JUST thinking "HE LOOKS LIKE A DREAMWORKS VERSION OF JOHN HAMM". That's in no way an insult; I'd literally shank someone to look like this guy, but still. Weird.
@@rebel2478 Uh. Marriage between people of the same sex is completely different than marriage between people who share blood. Saying that this falls under the 'Love Is Love' slogan grossly misrepresents what it actually means. Fighting for LGBT+ rights is totally different. EDIT: totally put 'share love' instead of share blood, and that is my bad. I am NOT in favor of incest.
A version of this was a sub-plot in an episode (or set of episodes) of Law & Order SVU; our protagonists busted some sort of sex trafficking ring, and like two of the 5 they busted were feds working the same case. All that to say, I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing (feds busting undercover local police or vice-versa) happened at least more frequently than people would normally think.
It happens a lot actually. Miami has over 4000 active police officers. As a result of this immense size, each division functions nearly as its entirely own police department. This causes undercover officers in Vice to be arrested rather regularly because they dont break cover in public, and as a side effect, the officers in Miami Vice are some of the most understanding when arresting people and have some of the lowest rates of "resisting" arrest as a result.
Pretty sure a common trend in SVU is to lie to culprits so they end up confessing in exchange for a lighter sentence. Know it's a tv show so it might not be entirely accurate, but I doubt cops have their hands tied when it comes to lying.
"We assume that the beneficiaries of the will are literate." That's a dangerous assumption. Half my graduating class was at a first grade reading level.
I'm glad you mentioned the misconception about reporting a missing person after 24 hours. Waiting actually makes it harder for people to search and follow the missing person's tracks. The more time that goes by, often the harder it can be to solve or find the person alive or dead. More people knowing this could help educate people if a loved one goes missing.
@@tristanbulluss9386 You'll get a chance soon enough. Just remember not to go in expecting to win. Take a specific amount of money that you're happy to lose and don't go beyond that.
People need to be careful with Rule 34. It turns out it's a prescriptive rule -- it is the act of thinking up weird porn that causes the weird porn to exist. Someone joked about doorknob licking and this is what happened: imgur.com/gallery/6x4Oi
It's still a common enough thing in india. I moved to a different city for college, and whenever I say I don't have a love life, people ask whether I have any beautiful cousins. They assume it's an easy deal because you already know them and people often marry their cousins. Not at all a thing in my hometown and I feel disgusted whenever someone mentions it...
IIRC cousins are only 1% higher risk of defects compared to two unrelated people if they have kids. And married people don't necessarily even want kids anyways.
@@jmiller6066 The risk goes up with multiple generations of first cousin marriages. Even so, it's still not as big of an issue as people think it is as long as you're introducing new blood every couple of generations and there aren't known genetic defects in the line, e.g. hemophilia, sickle cell, thalassemia, etc.
From someone with a degree in biology (i.e., Me): people tend to be pretty grossed out by the idea of cousin marriage, but the fact is that first cousins can have children without defect. As long as they aren't both carriers of genetic abnormalities, the children produced by 1st cousins (or 2nd cousins, or so on) will be just fine. The caveat of that is when: A) there is a genetic abnormality in the family, and B) multiple series of cousins continue to marry and have children together for generations (I'm looking at you, European Royal Family). But a one-off marriage between two cousins isn't going to automatically produce mutated offspring. The problem is not that a single marriage of close relatives could *cause* a mutation. The problems arise when close relatives *continue* to reproduce, limiting genetic variation and increasing the likelihood that already existing, but recessive, genetic mutations will be passed on to offspring by both parents.
Interesting thing here is that the states he marked have laws not just about first cousin marriage, but definitions for what does or doesn't constitute incest. The way they're worded I think the bigger concern in some states was less about about marriage between relatives, and more about rape and sexual abuse between older male, younger female relatives. For instance Kentucky specifies contact between uncle and niece, father-daughter, or stepfather-stepdaughter. Instances where one relative could plausibly be the legal guardian and there's a power imbalance. Also interesting is that women states consider first cousin too close of a relationship for procreation, but second cousin is considered far enough apart for all US state laws.
@@75aces97 Because with second cousins you have the same chance to have a child with genetic defects as with any other stranger (and in reality you don't have almost anything in common with your second cousin and barely know them if at all). Ofcourse it is legal.
Siblings can also have children without defect. It’s just very common to have children with defect. It gets less and less common the further apart you are genetically.
Because we all have problem genetics, every family has its hidden genetic land mines. Close relatives can concentrate good and bad traits. Useful to animal breeders looking to fix desired traits, disastrous when undesirable traits manifest (such as royal humans or purebred dogs).
All of that you're saying is just too complicated and sophisticated for the average human to understand or get around to hearing. So, we just say gross because that's what 6 year olds can understand.
Even this week there was a discussion on some consumer group on Facebook: "It's illegal for a company to charge you anything other on your payment card than what you agreed to." I informed them that (a) they shouldn't dish out legal opinions when they're not a legal expert and (b) the legal expert that I'm married had this exact situation, with a supermarket with a pretty poor online shop.
The weird thing is that that only covers FIRST cousins. If you want marry your second cousin it opens up MANY more states. By the time you hit 3rd cousin it's legal everywhere in the US.
Lmao florida and alabama were an obvious one. But high and mighty california allowing it too is amazing lol. They got so much sexual freedom that they ended coming back full circle to the hillbillies they despise.
@@DarkestKnightshade Certain areas have large populations were they think cousin marriage is still okay. The Utah area has Mormons, and in California the immigrant Hispanic population is still pretty open to it.
@@DarkestKnightshade You have some misconceptions about California, there. It's obvious that you have never been. Outside of the largest cities, THEY"RE all hillbillies, too.
"If the same case was tried to 10 different juries, it would be interesting to know how many would draw the same conclusion." This would be a fascinating study where the same real courtroom case is CCTVed to ten juries to render verdicts, but only one of which is the actual jury that will carry legal consequences. The different juries' verdicts could be examined to gain insight on why a certain jury would be more or less swayed by the same case evidence. Is there any law that would prevent such an experiment from being carried out, or have there been any studies with fake cases and fake juries that lead to any meaningful insights on human behavior?
My understanding is that high end legal firms will hire dismissed members of the jury pool to evaluate evidence in the case like the actual jury will eventually do. The reason appears that jurors tend to look at evidence and testimony critically when in a group so this method is a good way to predict the outcome and decide if it's worth risking a final judgement or push for settlement.
@@jakobcox4616 Been following his channel for a while. Actually, Legal Eagle surprised me when he mentioned he had done a few of my Memrise courses for Japanese.
Studies using fake cases and fake juries is research done regularly by law schools. Sometimes they even do reproductions of actual cases using transcripts. Recruitment is a major pain point, who wants MOAR jury duty? Unfortunately, most states have largely ignored research into how to make jury decisions more representative, accurate, precise, and reproducible. The classic problem being the lack of pay for jury duty means that most people of low means gets dismissed from a jury for financial hardship. This creates the famous mismatch: The criminal defendant is likely to be poor, while his jury of "peers" almost certainly are not poor. This also bleeds into civil trials too, but the parties tend not to be as poor.
This is a thing. Lawyers and social science folk have been doing this. People are not predictable and consistent. Studies show juror error is likely yet it's what we have. Best of a bunch of bad scenarios.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. My guess is that they have laws where the wording make it illegal, but not explicitly illegal, or the reverse where the wording leaves loopholes. For example, in my home state of Vermont, the public decency laws do not forbid public nudity, but state "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior is a punishable crime." (13 V.S.A. §2601: Lewd and Lascivious Conduct) as well as elsewhere defining the removal of one's clothing as lewd behavior (couldn't find the exact law). As such, so long as you are already nude once entering public property and do not act in a lewd or lascivious manner, it is perfectly legal to be nude in public. However, upon this loophole becoming more well known, a number of towns and cities enacted their own policies to prevent people from wondering around public spaces nude.
@@connormawe01 Now I'm just imagining some rich nudist owned some big building in a large city and hosted a nudist event in his building, and once everyone wasn't dressed, he told everyone that it was okay to walk the streets without worry of being arrested
That last one does sound like one of my psychology lectures where they explained that you can make someone confess to a crime that they didn't commit. You can plant false memories and or convince someone that their own memories are faulty.
you can -- you can gaslight people into doubting their own memories or begin to accept false memories, especially if they are particularly susceptible (i.e. due to a mental illness)
What I didnt quite get in that example was the part where he said the guy had said he wanted a lawyer but the cops kept asking questions and wore him down, maybe it's another myth but I thought that when you asked for/demanded an attorney they weren't supposed to be able to interrogate you until the attorney was present. You'd think if that were true then the confession would be thrown out, again I may be mistaken on that one as well.
@@Dirtydetective there was a case in the news a few years ago where they claimed that because the person being questioned didn't say verbatim 'I'm invoking my right to an attorney' they couldn't possibly have known he wanted a lawyer, even though he said 'I want a lawyer' or something like that, and it was upheld. So you're right, in theory it should be thrown out, but we live in america
Another thing police will do is interrogate somebody sometimes for hours on end, and in some cases, they get so tired of being questioned they just get worn down and confess to something they didn't do, and that false confession gets them put in prison, even if they later recounted it
I've found out over the years many people have misconceptions about laws, even law enforcement on many occasions. Its always a good practice to actually look up your state, local, and federal laws to see what it says on paper. Know your rights people.
I would add a caveat to this comment: you're not wrong, and there may be times that a cop is going to write a ticket or take some other action because of that misunderstanding. Cops are NOT walking law libraries, and they make mistakes. But the time for that discussion is NOT on the side of the road, on the sidewalk, or wherever the occurrence is happening. That's a really good way to find things going even worse for yourself, because now you're being belligerent. No matter how calm and cool you are, arguing with a cop is just stupid. Take your ticket, go to court, and prove your point. Police make arrests, they don't make convictions. You're never going to win that fight, because the argument you're making is for a court, not a cop. Just because you may be right doesn't mean you're IN the right if you decide to be an ass in that situation.
@@Bad_Wolf_Media It's really easy to say that when it doesn't happen on at least a weekly basis to you by multiple different police officers in your town who have nothing better to do with their time than harass ethnic minorities, and when complying with their illegal orders doesn't mean putting your life in danger to follow a completely made-up law.
@@ivandiaz5791 If that's happening to you, then you need to file a report with a different legal entity, because that sort of harassment is not legal, and steps will be taken. If you don't take that measure, then I assume it's not actually happening to you, and you're just trying to spread a story without an actual basis of fact. But if you decide that, if cops are that keen on screwing with you, and your best option is to get into an argument with them? That's on you.
Unfortunately, due to the way that laws are written and interpreted, it's virtually impossible to ever get a clear answer. Which is why lawyers say that it depends so often as it does. It's a bit of a scam that it's effectively impossible to ever know your legal rights without being an attorney and even then, it often has to go to court in order to get a final ruling. In order to know whether something is legal or not, you'd have to not just look up the law, but also the precedences that apply to it and the direction in which the courts are moving in that region. Fortunately, in most common situations things are pretty well established, but when they aren't, that's not likely to get you off.
I hope, in the two years since this was posted that he went down. When I studied forensics, I learned, unlike in the TV shows, that circumstantial evidence makes up the majority of evidence in most cases. The key evidence is really what ties various pieces of circumstantial evidence together to give the truth of the matter.
@@steverichardson8080 I doubt they are illegally getting married but I guess cousins could "shack up". Since this is a law of protection against inbreeding, it is telling us that the people of California prize incest over the dangers of inbreeding.
"If you're a cop you have to tell me" is my absolute favorite myth ever, and I love to extrapolate it to other things like "If you're a vampire you have to tell me" or "If you're a robot you have to tell me" (Asimov's lesser-known fourth law)
I tried to buy drugs from a dealer who asked me that, very officially. I said "Actually, that's not true. Undercover cops wouldn't make it very long if that's how it worked" He laughed and sold me the drugs anyways
Mine is the Miranda Warnings on arrest. "You have the right to remain silent....if you cannot afford a lawyer...etc" That's only if they are questioning you. And even if they don't then they may have to toss out the evidence obtained during the interview. Maybe.
Naw, if Asimov's robots were required to self-identify, there's at least one story he couldn't have done. He could have made it about a human claiming to be a robot, I suppose, but that seems easy to suss out.
When we were summoned to the "reading" of my mother's will, the lawyer made a point of saying there is no such thing as a reading of the will. He then proceeded to read my mother's complicated will line by line explaining as he went. It was an excruciatingly painful and horrible event.
I love the scene in Breaking Bad where an undercover cop says "hey ask if I'm a cop, if I'm a cop I have to tell you, right?" and then proceeded to say he wasn't a cop, buy meth, and immediately arrest the guy
Yup. Technically speaking, if someone was stabbed, and my fingerprints are on the knife. Feasibly, the knife could be brand new and I could have simply picked it up to look at it at the store
@@johanrunfeldt7174 How pathetic do you have to be to grasp at straws like that? "Yes officer, I shot 32 children, but the all had guns made of ice that melted before you got here"
@@Emil_Stoltz In small country areas that is still big and booming, cuz the less police their are (or better friends they are) the less the laws apply. We gettin back to our olden farm days Yee YEE!
Yelling "fire" is legal. The ensuing panic and reckless endangerment you caused are what get you in trouble. The loss of earnings & potential damage caused to the theatre as a result of your actions leave you liable to a civil suit. Basically you can say whatever you like, and not get in trouble for it. You can however get in trouble for peoples reactions that you triggered, if those reactions are a reasonably predictable outcome of your words.
What needs to be explained? You are counting how many of the face cards and tens have been played, so the rest of them are in the shoe waiting to be dealt. If the shoe has been half dealt, and very few face cards and tens have been played, then it's favorable for the player, so they should bet a lot. Oh, the shoe is the item that hold the cards waiting to be dealt (on the right side of the screen at 6:42).
@@TheWhale45 As a German: If you honestly think that the 1930s Nazi regime was, in any way or form, "socialist" you should pick up a history book. While it is true that they called themselves that to gather votes from poverty ridden voters, who lost land, homes, furniture, jobs after WW1 in a country with almost no functioning economy, they were simply a fascist right-wing dictatorship. Whatever floats your boat, though, man.
That first thing "If you ask a lawyer a question, they usually say 'it depends'" I felt that. My dad is in law, and when I was a kid Id ask law questions all the time, always started with "it depends." lolol
The only time an officer can't LEGALLY lie is in a courtroom... But that isn't to say they won't. But ye, lying during interrogations or casually? No laws against them doing that at all.
Yeah a popular one in that is that if you ask a cop if he IS a cop (like before doing a drug transaction or whatever (cop being undercover) they have to tell you they are a cop. They do NOT have to reveal they are and can outright lie to you about being law enforcement (slippery slope there though as far as if it's viewed as possibly entrapment depending on circumstances though)
@@swampwitch6133 my understanding of entrapment is that you can't be done for a crime a police officer encouraged you to commit. i'm not sure how denying being a police officer could affect that.
@@saelorasinanardiel8983 More specifically. I think it usually isn't entrapment if you decline to do it and they keep pushing you to do it. But I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice so I don't know.
@@jadegrace1312 I think the wording is sort of the police offering you the opportunity to commit a crime that you would not have otherwise gone and done. I believe the classic example is if a cop knows you are in rehab and knocks on your door to offer you drugs. It's entrapment because you were otherwise minding your own business. Now they can stand on a street corner posing as a dealer and wait for you to ask them.
When my brother went missing and when we called 911 the operator said we had to wait 24hrs to officially report it 🙃. Laws only matter if law enforcement actually knows the law
Unfortunately the police doesn’t have to know the law 😔 (I mean, it’s kinda obvious. Police academy takes like half a year, while law school takes way longer) this one is kind of absurd and very very harmful. I hope your brother was found and everything turned out fine.
Or, as Abbie Hoffman said, "Freedom is being able to yell "Theater" in a crowded Firehouse." The moral of the last point is 1. Never confess to anything incriminating and 2. If you're in legal jeopardy, don't say anything at all except "I need to speak with my attorney".
@@ztmackin Your wording might be technically more correct, but any Police who ignored the first version wouldn't get a lot of sympathy from a judge or defense attorney. "Yes, your Honor, he did say that he needed to speak with his lawyer, but we disregarded that and kept interrogating him because..."
@@Foolish188 Yeah, exercising your legal rights may annoy the police and give you bad press. But it's still the right thing to do. If you're seriously sick, than you call a real doctor. And if you are in serious legal trouble, than you need a real lawyer--and sooner, not later after you've already made a mistake.
@@Enderslegend There is no specific law but if you knowingly falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and damage results from it you can probably be held liable for that damage in a civil suit
Fun fact, I helped lobby and got a bill passed here in Colorado that bans the use of “deceptive interrogation” by SROs in schools. So that at least is a start in Colorado
A great scene from Breaking Bad is when Badger is sitting on the bench and the undercover cop sits down and tells him that if he asks if he's a cop he's not allowed to lie, Badger asks him, he lies, he buys drugs, they arrest him. 😂 Badger is one of my favorite characters.
You being a lawyer, I thought for sure you'd cover the "One Phone Call" myth, which is that a suspect gets one phone call (and only one, apparently) when they're arrested, presumably to call their lawyer. As I understand it, a suspect generally gets reasonable use of a phone to call a lawyer or family member or whomever to help them, including multiple calls if someone isn't answering, for example.
You are not required to be provided use of a phone. In Indiana, the custodial agency only has to inform the public that you are incarcerated, which is usually done on the jail's website, where they post your photo and information. As long as you're not being a jerk, you will almost always be allowed to use a phone, but they do not have to let you.
@@Evan_Horvath If they deny the use of a phone when asked for it to call a family member, then they must call YOUR lawyer for you, or your family however. Federal laws disallow police to basically trap you in a jail without a way to contact family or friends, and you must be given reasonable ability to make contact with people that can aid you in whatever you may need. Example, a family member caring for an elderly person gets arrested for minor assault charges, the elderly person can NOT take care of themselves, and now the police tell them they have no right to a phone. What is gonna happen? well that person is gonna be either stuck without care, or a police officer has to go over, do a wellness check, and can NOT leave them if they are unable to walk/function on their own.
a good example of circumstantial evidence is if u r indoors and someone comes in dripping wet saying it's raining outside; if u can't see or hear the rain then there is no proof that this person is wet from being in the rain. but logic and experience would make u incredibly likely to believe the person and circumstances.
The main thing is to never say anything in the police interview. It is court where you have to explain yourself, the police interview is just to get a confession or more evidence. It doesn't matter if your innocent or guilty and court is where you say if you witnessed something. The interview is to see if you did it so you could end up being falsely accused if you talk
Hey! I'm a law graduate working at a criminal defence firm in Scotland. I would absolutely love to see you talk about Scots Law since our legal system has quite a few interesting aspects to it, like: the 'not proven' verdict in criminal trials, the concept of 'hamesucken', and the elements of creating a contract (verbal agreement is enough). Thanks!
Having watched a fair amount of true crime videos, I have absolutely no doubt that you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone...and I was really surprised at how easily you can get convictions with some juries. Who needs evidence when you've got imagination, I guess.
That last case with the fake “confession” should have been tossed because he asked for a lawyer, but didn’t get one and the police continued questioning him.
Yeah, unfortunately, you have to be really specific. Like, "I am invoking my right to have a lawyer present. I am invoking my right to remain silent until a lawyer is present." And then just. Don't talk. Even if they offer a glass of water, or coffee, or start being nice, or make you wait a whole ass day.
"Lawyers prefer to wound you with a pen, not a sword" Unless you're in Ancient Rome. In Ancient Rome, part of being a successful lawyer means leading a few armies into battle.
But, if my memory serves, in ancient rome sharpend pencils were the assasination weapon of coice since rome it self was a no weapon zone so you coulnt bring actuall weapons.
After my grandmother’s death her lawyer contacted us all and we met in their office to have a reading of the will. And it was in fact dramatic. Lots of yelling from certain “forgotten” family members and the like.
One thing I love about this guy is the map he brings up to emphasize the importance of jurisdiction. The law varies state to state and it’s important to understand local and state ordinances l
@@mugnuzwhy do you think the law system sucks? The US uses a federal system. States can decide their own laws if they don't conflict with the constitution. Why would people in Arkansas want to follow the same laws Vermont has? Enforcing uniform laws onto everyone is racist.
@@troletrain still when one judge decides something the other must follow which is crazy. And if laws are well made its okay everybody needs to follow. And i dont even get what you mean by racist...
"It depends" is often a sign of a person actually being well informed, no matter the discipline. It shows an understanding of the complexity of their area of expertise, no matter what.
🍿What else is a legal myth?
🚀 Get CuriosityStream AND Nebula for (26% off!) curiositystream.com/legal
HOLY CRUD IM THE SECOND VIEW
@@khizarkhan4250 so am i :)
There's no restrictions on the number of a certain types of adult toys you can own in Arizona.
Do a reaction to the song rise up.
The one thing that's caught my curiosity is the case against Julian Assange
I'd just like to add. That whole "waiting 24 hours to report someone missing" thing is really dangerous. If you believe that someone is missing or has been taken etc. Those first 24 hours are really crucial to finding them. It gets exponentially harder the longer you wait
Exactly!!! Especially with minors. I read somewhere around 90% of children are killed within the first 24 hours of being abducted
@@jen6294 Most people consider missing children as completely different from missing adults. With children, they are immediately extremely concerned. With adults, you think - maybe there's some reason they aren't where you expected, or why you haven't heard from them.
I don't think the myth was ever that it was a hard rule, but rather that if someone disappeared for less than 24 hours, absent evidence of a crime, police didn't want to take a report because there's a chance they're not really missing. If you saw them shoved into a van, that's a completely different situatuion than they didn't come home last night.
(EDIT) Of course, different rules apply for children. One of my classmates in Elementary School missed his bus and tried to walk to school but didn't know the route and got lost. The police were absolutely involved due to his age and he was found safely.
Exactly. This "must be missing for at least 24 hours" is really grinding my gears. If your spouse is home from work by 4pm every single day and then one day they aren't yet home at 8pm, and you can't reach them on their cell phone and not at their work place, of course you'd go to the police and I really doubt they would be like "oh, let's just wait for another 20 hours, OK?"
Even if the rule existed, I'd imagine they'd take the report but wait up to 24 hours before acting on it, rather than refusing the report altogether. If that makes sense, I'm not a lawyer
The movie "Knives Out" featured a will reading, but the lawyer specified that it wasn't legally required. I think that was a nice touch.
Knives Out can be summarized as "all of this Agatha Christie stuff doesn't make any sense, but we're doing it anyway because the deceased was a nerd."
It was important for the plot, I guess.
i love this stupid movie so much - a great deconstruction of the genre
Me too!!! Such a delicious romp of a move 🖤
@@gunmadonna Same me and my friends family watched it for a quarantine movie night and had so much fun figuring it out
It's really funny how a lot of these misconceptions are almost entirely due to shows and movies perpetuating them.
Or by bad-intended pseudo-intelectuals.
As are most things
Don't forget casinos want people to very much think it's illegal to card count.
@@oliverp3545 3uwh
@@oliverp3545 why did people think that?
For number 6, this is absolutely why people are always saying "do not say anything when being questioned by the police, invoke your right to remain silent, and demand to speak to a lawyer." When they say 'anything you say can be used against you' they mean *anything* this includes things they tricked or manipulated you into saying.
100%
or just plain make up
“Your buddy already gave you up. Confess now and you might avoid the death penalty”
Meanwhile they never even questioned your partner
@@richardwallis9374 Yeah, I'd argue this is really bad and inexcusable. You put the suspect under duress and _make_ them confess.
It's manipulation and you basically can't know if the confession is honest anymore, a confession made under such circumstances where the suspect is made to believe they have no choice or face worse consequences whether it's true or not should absolutely not be accepted by the court. Same with cases where they interrogate the suspect for days on end until they become delirious and just needs it to end no matter what (which I would argue is mental torture). If the prosecutors have to resort to such tactics, it should hurt their case, not win it.
The system doesn't care about putting the culprit behind bars, it cares about blaming _someone_ .
@@johnroe643 Make up? Oh no. Because while the police can lie to you, there are laws that you cannot lie to certain law enforcement officials (the exact kind escapes me at the moment).
*undercover officer walks up to a meth lab*
Goon: "Yo, you a cop?"
Cop: *dejectedly sighs* yea....
*cop turns around walks away sulking*
nobody wants to play with a cop. tired of getting tased for stealing a base in baseball.
answers the question with a question that affirms you are a police officer, while keeping it vague: " Sure, isn´t everyone a cop these days with their cellphones... .. ... .. .. haha?"
Lol now that is awesome
walks away sulking, assured that the 6 back-up Task Force officers will confiscate all cash and most product , pump 34 bullets in the dealers limp torso and plant the illegal firearm within a fingers grasp of his defensive gestures.
@@Redmanticore lol you havnt bought drugs before
Getting robbed? Just say no! A robber legally cannot take your possessions without your consent.
may not be original, but my god did i laugh too much.
the dad jokes are becoming funny, i guess it's time to start finding a wife and make some babies.
@@Chip-Chapley bold of you to assume that you can even get a woman
@@Lightwar49 bold of you to assume he's not marrying his cousin
@@darss10 SWEEET HOOME ALABAMA
@@darss10 bold of you to assume his cousin isn't out if his league.
If police weren't allowed to lie, every single undercover operation would fail.
I say this all the time, and people STILL insist that if you ask a cop if they're undercover they have to tell you. One thing I get a lot is "They can say things like 'Do I look like a cop?'" No Kevin, they can say "I'm not a cop." If they couldn't, they'd only catch the very dumbest criminals.
I wonder if law enforcement creates or perpetuates some of these myths to make their jobs easier?
@@Busrayne mind = blown
r/legaladvices mods are either cops or pro cops
They can lie to you, what they can't do is attempt to persuade you to commit a crime. Even undercover they couldn't for example be the boss, or even an under boss as everyone working for them is then been told to break the law. This is entrapment, and is actually illegal.
"You have to wait 24 hours to report a missing person." This myth is actually one of the more dangerous ones, I have known and heard of some cops that actually believe this, including one case I heard of where someone went to report a missing person and the police on duty actually told them they had to wait 24 hours.
This happened with my schizophrenic veteran brother. They refused to do anything, saying that he was "an adult" and could be found easily. His phone and wallet were at my house. The locals refused to help us, the state put the APB out right away.
I have been told this by a cop lol my brother ran away and the cop who showed up literally said this not sure where he got that from. It was the 90,s and I think he may have just been lazy but my brother came back either way no thanks to that dude
I blame the movie Bridesmaids
Perfect example of how cops don't actually need to know the law. Even though they are the ones that enforce it. 🤦♂️
@@nandee1fuery I'm glad you thought of going to the state. I get alerts for missing "vulnerable adults" (such as people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, or dementia) on a regular basis and they are often from the state Highway Patrol.
I'm glad "everything is legal in New Jersey" didn't get busted as a myth.
It's not a myth, it's a fact
Same, otherwise I would be in a LOT of trouble ;-)
Can confirm, it's real
You can't pump your own gas.
@@OtakuUnitedStudio i mean you can pump your own gas, unless youre at a station that requires a clock in card to operate
Only legal advice I'll ever accept online:
You should go ask a lawyer about that
Would you also take advice on what type of lawyer to see?
Same for medical advice: you should go see a doctor about that
Remember the three Ups when dealing with police.Give Up, don't run, Shut Up, don't talk, and Lawyer Up, no matter what. Follow the Ups and it won't get you out of trouble, but you won't get yourself into more than you already are
Hopefully not the advice your lawyer emails you with.
Limeila doctor mike 🙃
In Blackjack, if you aren't counting cards, you're just donating your money to the casino
Or paying for having fun.
That's why casinos use multideck shufflers now adays.
I just try to track the tens; it's easier and I mostly go for fun anyway, but it seems to help.
I've gotten lucky and made a couple thousand bucks on a 4 day trip to Vegas once. No card counting just blind luck.
How can you NOT count cards? It’s automatic.
The myth of waiting 24h to report someone missing is CRAZY to me. Especially because the first 48 hours are so CRUCIAL to finding someone alive.
That's certainly how it works in movies and on TV. However, in the police station when dealing with missing person reports, particularly where the missing is an adult. 99.9% end with the person coming home an hour later. They just dont make TV shows about those outcomes.
Fun fact: I've been reported missing after around 30 minutes. They didn't launch an investigation, but the police were told to keep their eyes peeled.
I wasn't missing. I went for a walk, forgot to tell my dad, and my phone died.
LOOOL well at least if you were missing you would have been found sooner
Hey, at least your dad cares about you. You should find peace in the fact that if you ever were to go missing, an investigation would be launched quickly.
@@immortalsun actually, it wasn't his idea... someone at the rec center (where I was supposed to be) overheard him and said that they needed to tell the police lol
Saw this a lot in college, when roommates decided to go home with each other planning on calling mom when they got there
When I was a little kid, I was reported missing because i was playing hide and seek at my friends house down the street, and fell asleep in their closet. They couldn't find me so they thought I went home without telling anyone, and they didn't tell my dad...
You covered my favorite legal myths. I've had so many potential clients who wanted to challenge a will because "there wasn't even a reading of will!" They're shocked when I tell them that's not a thing.
It’s still disturbing how much weight to given to eyewitness testimony to convict when it’s some of the worst evidence out there. It’s nothing more than somebody saying they saw something.
"Trust me bro" except it can determine a person's entire future lmao
I think its cause a) the judicial system is old, and was created at a time before we knew how unreliable human memory is and b) most cases would have basically nothing to convict on if not for testimony.
Testimony is powerful in smaller communities, where rep counts.
While it is very flawed, it is very far from being "some of the worst evidence out there." Yhere are countless examples of circumstantial evidence that are much less reliable.
"I saw Bill shoot Joe in the chest"
Is certainly better than
"Joe was murdered in his apartment and Bill lives on the same floor"
Or the weight is multiplied because of someone's profession, or whether they're a regular church goer. That just reeks of naivity.
My dad is an excellent black jack player due to his ability to count cards. His proudest moment was when the manager of a local casino came up to him while playing, thanked him for his patronage, offered him a free at the casino steak house and then politely informed him that if he ever returned to the casino again he would be arrested for trespassing. He stopped gambling after that lol.
And your dad was a courier, and all that happened in the Tops casino on New Vegas strip. Or was it Atomic Wrangler in the Freeside?
Who knew that you are protected from being thrown out if you do it in New Jersey! I must learn to count cards ... :)
@@monelleny They can't bar you from playing, but they can limit you to the minimum bet, which eliminates any reason to count cards. Alternatively, they can short-shoe you (reshuffling very early in the shoe), which nearly eliminates the advantage of counting cards. Or they can kick you out under some pretense or whatever. Also, the games in Atlantic City are reputedly pretty bad for players anyway (e.g. 6-5 payout on blackjack instead of 3-2).
@@murkotron lol he said local casino, that means small and local. Get over it.
Literally all of this depends on the state the casino is located in. Every state has its own Gaming Commission that has its own laws/rules that the casinos have to follow.
Great video. I actually drafted New York's missing adults law. Until 2016, there was no state law requiring police to take reports of missing adults. Now, as long as there is reasonable concern for their safety, police are required to report the missing adult to the NCIC as they are for missing children.
So your the one who help create the PAPERS PLEASE for adults that just want disappear, be left alone and the commie govt grabs them in the name of the NWO controlling society
I wonder if anyone has ever yelled "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse.
Underrated comment!
Nice one!
Since you're getting credit , i must point out that that is an ancient Steven Wright joke.
Someone yelled it in a crowded building as caused deaths once I can’t remember what if was called tho
@@kenalls3518
I did steal it of course, but I am asking it as a legitimate question.
Florida. Naturally. As a floridian I approve this, and so does my cousin.
I wonder if there are exceptions for the same-sex cousin marriage in the states that look down on it.
and so does your mutual child
Schrodinger's familiar. A person that occupies two levels of a family tree simultaneously.
Wondering who's "Florida Man" parents are
Lmao
I had a pot dealer in college, and in our first transaction he said to me, "oh by the way, if you ask an undercover cop if they are police, they CAN say no." I told him I knew that, but thanks anyway.
Let me guess, HE was a cop, and you got busted.
@@trevormillar1576 That would be hilarious.
Ask a lawyer: "Boxers or briefs?"
Lawyer: "Depends."
Fit-Flex preferably...
Always.
Kilt?
@@charleshetrick3152 Kilt? Nah, only injured.
You are all sick individuals and I admire you. ❤️
"Lawyers prefer to fight with our words, not our fists."
Apparently you've never practiced law in New Jersey...
Take a comment for doing a funny
Everything is legal in New Jersey
Ouch
He must not have met Matt Murdoch.
Everything is legal there
Criminalizing card counting would be literal thought policing.
not too far off from what's happening nowadays
@@imitatsiya oh come on noone is thought policing , arnold.
@@imitatsiya i see you already have the profile pic to match your clown act
please stop misusing words simply to evoke an inappropriate emotional response. And for the love of god, actually read the book.
The dealers also learn to card count specifically because it's not a crime to do so, in order to counter players that do card count.
I actually knew these. What surprises me is that in Frazier v. Cupp the confession wasn't thrown out since the defendant had previously asked for and not been given a lawyer.
I adreed with you. Once a person asks for a lawyer, all questions must stop regarding the case. Of course the cops can ask you if you need to use the bathroom. This may have been before the Miranda v. Arizona days.
simple when you ask for a lawyer just shut up
Not sure how the line of questioning actually went in that case, but the term "suggesting" infers they said "Should I get a lawyer ?" and the police would usually answer with something like "Do you want a lawyer ?" If the suspect says yes, the interrogation has to conclude then and there, but if they reply anything that isn't a clear indication of that right, the interrogation can and will continue without further precision unless brought up again by the suspect.
The police will ask you directly once, when you're read your rights, if you want a lawyer and that's when you should say "yes" and not say another word. If you don't, it is assumed you consent in waivering that right to proceed with the interrogation until you bring it back up.
Because it was before Miranda. The murder trial was in 1965. Miranda was in 1966.
That scene in Breaking Bad where Badger gets arrested by a cop after asking him whether he was a cop is one of the best scenes highlighting that last point😂
This was the exact scene I was thinking of when he was talking about that lmao
Badger complaining about the cop lying to him afterwards just was the cherry on top
Yup! Thought the same thing. DJ Qualls was really excellent in that scene.
Especially after he pegged the guy as a cop. He was savvy enough to know something was up and ignored it in favor of foolishness.
I didn’t even know that “police can’t lie” was even a thing people believed. I’ve never heard of that until now.
Okay
I think it's far more common for people to believe a much narrower version of the myth, which is that undercover cops cannot deny that they're cops when asked (obviously there couldn't be undercover cops at all if they weren't allowed to lie, period). I think it mainly comes from the movies, and it seems plausible to many people because it sounds like some kind of legal protection against entrapment.
@@iang0th I'm assuming that's what he meant, since that was the context in the video. It's still equally stupid though. Like I don't see how there's any logical sense behind the idea of "oh yeah, if someone asks if our undercover cop is undercover, he has to say yes."
Granted, people who think that usually have rotted brains from all the drugs.
AFAIK while they can lie, what they're not allowed to do is misrepresent the content of the Law--i.e. they are liable if they falsely tell you that something legal is a crime or that something criminal is legal in an effort to induce you to commit an illegal act or to induce you to refrain from asserting your rights such as right to remain silent or right to an attorney.
I never heard the will thing before either
The 24 hour rule was probably spread by kidnappers
Yeah
In India, for an adult, I think it is...
More likely by people who are tired of people being too paranoid. My mother wanted to report me as missing multiple times already, when my phone died or I had no signal.
No the people who got bribe from kidnappers.
Or cops too lazy to do anything
i remember a cop telling me he could literally tell a suspect they had proof that they did the crime even if they had NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
This is what's called a basic interrogation tactic.
Frankly, that's not very outrageous and a valid tactic to get a confession.
@@BrendanRader-n4p Which is the whole point as to why it is outrageous. That's all police interrogations are designed to do - not get at the truth, but just get a confession, so the cops can go back to their donuts and coffee.
This interrogation tactic has resulted in numerous cases of false confessions! A great reason why even innocent people should remain silent. Don't talk to cops any more than absolutely necessary to protect yourself and others.
He looks like Ryan Reynold's brother that decided to go into law instead of acting
More like John Krasinski tbh
@@liavhanegbi2729 he looks like a lovechild of both of them
Brian Reynolds
This thread 😂⚰
Oh he really does I just noticed that
"First cousin marriages are legal in Florida..."
Me: "Ha!"
"...Massachusetts"
Me: "....goddamnit"
"Hey Kentucky! Good for you!"
Neener Neener neeeeenerrrrr!
Right lol I thought we were better than this
@@fofogigishosho we are just as bad as Alabama ig. Smh 😔
Me when he said NC
"California"
Wait wtf
0:50 - Chapter 1 - It's illegal to marry your cousin
2:45 - Chapter 2 - The will is only binding if it's read to you
6:10 - Chapter 3 - Counting cards is illegal
7:40 - Chapter 4 - You have to wait 24h to report a missing person
10:05 - Chapter 5 - You can't be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone
13:10 - Chapter 6 - The police can't lie to you
14:55 - End roll ads
Thanks!
I don't know why the UA-camrs themselves don't add timestamps
Thanks! I knew all these, saved me some time
Ok but it never said if cousin marriage is legal in texas
@@visassess8607because then people skip larger portions of the video lol sometimes its beneficial but usually ends in lower watch time…like my most viewed video, probably 10 ppl commented the timestamp of the moment of the big reveal. didnt make me mad cuz i understand butttt kinda did at the same time 😂
As an English lawyer specialising in wills and probate I was only ever once asked to read the will. I explained it wasn't necessary but they insisted. They were a lovely family and there were no nasty surprises, everyone going away happy. The big legal lie I had to debunk several times was common-law marriage, or marriage by cohabitation and repute as it used to be called. There used to be a strong belief this was a thing, but the concept was abolished in 1753 in England and Wales. I came across a lady who went to see a divorce lawyer to seek a divorce, only for him to conclude after careful enquiry that she could not get a divorce because she had never actually been married.
Common-law marriage used to be -umm, common - in many USA states due to records getting lost over the years, but most of those were repealed in the 1960s-1970s because they didn't want those darn hippies getting the benefits of marriage just because they lived together for the required number of years (often seven). That was the irony of the Lee Marvin "palimony" case, had California not repealed their common-law marriage law, Lee and Michelle would have been considered married due to how long they had cohabited.
The myth of common-law marriage is indeed a persistent one. Despite being abolished in 1753 in England and Wales, many people still believe that living together for a certain period grants them the same legal rights as a married couple. It’s surprising how these misconceptions can lead to significant misunderstandings, like the case of the lady seeking a divorce without ever having been legally married.
We do still have it in a few states here.
‘Do you always answer your questions with ‘It depends?’
*’It depends…’*
So no
If push button:
Get good high paying profession but
Have to answer every question with it depends
@@fever7346 it depends
Re: waiting 24hrs before reporting a missing person. Please don’t do that. The earlier you report, the better. If there’s someone missing, the searchers will want to know earlier rather than later.
I tried to but they said oh wait till tomorrow he is a grown adult. He was expected to come home by 6pm didn’t show up till 3am
This is the most stupid rule ever, it’s like “oh, they might be dead by tomorrow, but don’t report it because they might wander back in the door”
Also the example given in the video would certainly be kidnapping, not "missing person"
@@odkres I was coming here to say this, but see you beat me to it.
But the thing is, that narrative has changed quite a while ago. What's said now is that if someone has been missing for that amount of time the chances that something really bad already happened to that person are very high.
Its always been weird how many people think card counting is illegal. You're litterally just playing with skill and using your brain
True, but the casino can still throw you out.
Not too many people can use their brain though
Yeah, my dad taught me young that it's not illegal, so while watching this I was wondering if the whole pit boss throw you out / beat you up thing was a myth as well. I guess not.
Pit bosses aren’t going to beat you up, it’s not the 1950s or whenever the mob really completely ran a ton of Vegas casinos. In the 2010s and on, if you get caught counting (and you’re really an advantage player that is beating the casino then they’ll just either ban you from the casino or ban you from playing blackjack at that casino. Not gonna be any physical harm, but in the mob days that was a thing)…a lot of people “count” or think they’re good but they’re really still losing or at best breaking even. Or not betting properly while counting etc.
Or even if they’re maybe counting, they’re degenerate gamblers and get tilted when they lose and their strategy goes out the window and they do really dumb, very -EV stuff to try and chase their losses or go gamble at high stakes in other games like roulette or craps. The casino will still want your business if you’re one of these people since you’re still going to end up losing a lot of money there.
And ya it’s not illegal you won’t get arrested…unless like he said you’re using some sort of illegal devices or marking the cards in some way.
@@BOnYTB My life experience proves you wrong. 🤘
For the circumstantial evidence it made me think immediately it'd be hilariously awful if you like cut yourself kinda bad at a friend's place and had to go RIGHT before they were brutally murdered and the prosecutions like "The DNA evidence is beyond clear."
Oh something similar to that actually happened. A victim was murdered in an apartment and csi found blood, hair, fingerprints of another person in a lot of places inside the apartment unit. So this unidentified person was of course the prime suspect but turns out they were just the previous tenant and thankfully, they had a strong alibi during the night of the crime. If it wasn't for the alibi, i bet they'd be in the interrogation room longer.
@@snflwrchan8019 Well, that was the night I was in labor at NYU Langone... I'm trying to think what the strongest alibis would be. Labor in a hospital seems high.
@@shinylilfishbeing dead already probably outranks it by a bit.
@shinylilfish already imprisoned at the time is a solid alibi but in the same vien as giving birth in a hospital being in surgery under anesthetic, under supervised quarantine for certain drug or vaccine trials, and staying in a psychiatric unit.
@@snflwrchan8019
There was also a case were a guy was placed by DNA at the murder scene, but also had an ironclad alibi, being at a hospital when it happened. Turned out the paramedics who took the guy to the hospital also were on site at the murder scene and somehow contaminated it.
Actually the lawyer will answer: "That will be $800 per hour plus expenses, and it will take months."
this guy looks like a photo-realistic cgi version of himself
He looks perfect right!
Holy shit, I was JUST thinking "HE LOOKS LIKE A DREAMWORKS VERSION OF JOHN HAMM".
That's in no way an insult; I'd literally shank someone to look like this guy, but still. Weird.
+
Being a lawyer pays well..... maybe 🤣🤷♂️.
...
But beware: NEVER yell "theater" in a crowded fire :=)
Can you explain? I'm really curious as to what this is supposed to mean 😅
@@frostbytes8906 A flip on "never yell fire in a crowded theater"
@@kanjakan wow my dumbass thought it was a saying or something
Feel free to yell, "This is fine."
@@frostbytes8906 it's a yippie saying
14:10 Wait so they denied him his right to speak to an attorney and it still held up? That is incredibly crooked.
“Cousin marriage is legal in 21 states [also *most* of Europe]”
Comments: “haha sweet home Alabama!”
*completely ignores of other 20 states*
I was surprised that it's legal in California.
@@shinyagumon7015 why its a pretty liberal thing love is love right?
is 1 allabama
@@Zach__tendy Yes, one of the twenty one states that allow cousin marriage without restraints is Alabama.
@@rebel2478 Uh. Marriage between people of the same sex is completely different than marriage between people who share blood. Saying that this falls under the 'Love Is Love' slogan grossly misrepresents what it actually means. Fighting for LGBT+ rights is totally different.
EDIT: totally put 'share love' instead of share blood, and that is my bad. I am NOT in favor of incest.
"Police can not lie to you."
Undercover Drug Dealer: "I'm not a cop. Are you?"
Undercover Drug Buyer: "Not a cop. What you got?"
A version of this was a sub-plot in an episode (or set of episodes) of Law & Order SVU; our protagonists busted some sort of sex trafficking ring, and like two of the 5 they busted were feds working the same case.
All that to say, I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing (feds busting undercover local police or vice-versa) happened at least more frequently than people would normally think.
It happens a lot actually. Miami has over 4000 active police officers. As a result of this immense size, each division functions nearly as its entirely own police department. This causes undercover officers in Vice to be arrested rather regularly because they dont break cover in public, and as a side effect, the officers in Miami Vice are some of the most understanding when arresting people and have some of the lowest rates of "resisting" arrest as a result.
**awkward silence**
**both cops panic and reach for their guns**
Comedy or karma?
@@Rovsau niether?
Pretty sure a common trend in SVU is to lie to culprits so they end up confessing in exchange for a lighter sentence. Know it's a tv show so it might not be entirely accurate, but I doubt cops have their hands tied when it comes to lying.
"We assume that the beneficiaries of the will are literate."
That's a dangerous assumption. Half my graduating class was at a first grade reading level.
Half your graduating what?
(I'm kidding, I know you meant graduating class!)
@@Gulyus I think he's just proving a point. LOL
@@Gulyus Whoops. Need to remember to proofread. Thanks for the catch. Fixed.
And I live in Scotland in country where a lot of the older generation can't read or write because they don't really need to.
Objection!
A first grade reading level is, in fact, literate. Dummyhead.
So many cold cases wouldn't have gone cold if the whole "waiting 24 hours" myth wasn't perpetuated
I'm glad you mentioned the misconception about reporting a missing person after 24 hours. Waiting actually makes it harder for people to search and follow the missing person's tracks. The more time that goes by, often the harder it can be to solve or find the person alive or dead. More people knowing this could help educate people if a loved one goes missing.
If everyone had to wait 24 hours, the show The First 48 wouldn't exist...
Also, for the elderly or people suffering from Alzheimer's/dementia. silver alerts
His example is a bad example though, he basically described kidnapping.
@@BaronSengir1008 exactly! xD
@@dickstarrbuck True, though I guess it was a generalization. There are a lot of different missing person case circumstances.
Casinos actually like card counting. For every one guy who is good at it, there are 10 who come to vegas and lose their money while doing it.
house always wins
Do you play?.
@@tristanbulluss9386 For money? No, because it's a losing game. You 'play' and 'win' by just not playing at all.
I was thinking about going to the casino and playing 21 for the first time but then the virus hit.
@@tristanbulluss9386 You'll get a chance soon enough. Just remember not to go in expecting to win. Take a specific amount of money that you're happy to lose and don't go beyond that.
Uses the word “relatively “ when talking about marrying a cousin
"Incest is relative" is a often used trope
bro thats what i was thinking lol
While sad to hear that 'bird law' is not a thing, I thoroughly enjoyed that disclaimer at the end.
"Licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets"
-Lawyer Sponge S
The wisest words ever spoken.
it depends
Don't worry, whatever planet you're on, it's still only illegal on the other ones.
People need to be careful with Rule 34. It turns out it's a prescriptive rule -- it is the act of thinking up weird porn that causes the weird porn to exist. Someone joked about doorknob licking and this is what happened: imgur.com/gallery/6x4Oi
As an alien I can confirm. It is a capital offense on a few planets. The fact that earth allows it is the reason we rarely visit.
"Marrying your cousin was considered a *relatively* good bet.."
#UnexpectedDadJoke
It's still a common enough thing in india.
I moved to a different city for college, and whenever I say I don't have a love life, people ask whether I have any beautiful cousins.
They assume it's an easy deal because you already know them and people often marry their cousins.
Not at all a thing in my hometown and I feel disgusted whenever someone mentions it...
IIRC cousins are only 1% higher risk of defects compared to two unrelated people if they have kids. And married people don't necessarily even want kids anyways.
@@jmiller6066 The risk goes up with multiple generations of first cousin marriages. Even so, it's still not as big of an issue as people think it is as long as you're introducing new blood every couple of generations and there aren't known genetic defects in the line, e.g. hemophilia, sickle cell, thalassemia, etc.
Well, marrying another person of same gender is fine, but a cousin you love is not?
@@raerohan4241 nowdays is quite popular on the youth not having childs. So i don't really see the issue in that cases.
From someone with a degree in biology (i.e., Me): people tend to be pretty grossed out by the idea of cousin marriage, but the fact is that first cousins can have children without defect. As long as they aren't both carriers of genetic abnormalities, the children produced by 1st cousins (or 2nd cousins, or so on) will be just fine. The caveat of that is when: A) there is a genetic abnormality in the family, and B) multiple series of cousins continue to marry and have children together for generations (I'm looking at you, European Royal Family). But a one-off marriage between two cousins isn't going to automatically produce mutated offspring. The problem is not that a single marriage of close relatives could *cause* a mutation. The problems arise when close relatives *continue* to reproduce, limiting genetic variation and increasing the likelihood that already existing, but recessive, genetic mutations will be passed on to offspring by both parents.
Interesting thing here is that the states he marked have laws not just about first cousin marriage, but definitions for what does or doesn't constitute incest. The way they're worded I think the bigger concern in some states was less about about marriage between relatives, and more about rape and sexual abuse between older male, younger female relatives. For instance Kentucky specifies contact between uncle and niece, father-daughter, or stepfather-stepdaughter. Instances where one relative could plausibly be the legal guardian and there's a power imbalance.
Also interesting is that women states consider first cousin too close of a relationship for procreation, but second cousin is considered far enough apart for all US state laws.
@@75aces97 Because with second cousins you have the same chance to have a child with genetic defects as with any other stranger (and in reality you don't have almost anything in common with your second cousin and barely know them if at all). Ofcourse it is legal.
Siblings can also have children without defect. It’s just very common to have children with defect. It gets less and less common the further apart you are genetically.
Because we all have problem genetics, every family has its hidden genetic land mines. Close relatives can concentrate good and bad traits. Useful to animal breeders looking to fix desired traits, disastrous when undesirable traits manifest (such as royal humans or purebred dogs).
All of that you're saying is just too complicated and sophisticated for the average human to understand or get around to hearing. So, we just say gross because that's what 6 year olds can understand.
Even this week there was a discussion on some consumer group on Facebook: "It's illegal for a company to charge you anything other on your payment card than what you agreed to." I informed them that (a) they shouldn't dish out legal opinions when they're not a legal expert and (b) the legal expert that I'm married had this exact situation, with a supermarket with a pretty poor online shop.
"[cousin marriage] was considered a *relatively* good bet" Don't think I didn't notice this!
I don't know if that was intentional, but good catch regardless, I sure didn't notice it.
The weird thing is that that only covers FIRST cousins. If you want marry your second cousin it opens up MANY more states. By the time you hit 3rd cousin it's legal everywhere in the US.
Lmao florida and alabama were an obvious one. But high and mighty california allowing it too is amazing lol. They got so much sexual freedom that they ended coming back full circle to the hillbillies they despise.
@@DarkestKnightshade Certain areas have large populations were they think cousin marriage is still okay. The Utah area has Mormons, and in California the immigrant Hispanic population is still pretty open to it.
@@DarkestKnightshade You have some misconceptions about California, there. It's obvious that you have never been. Outside of the largest cities, THEY"RE all hillbillies, too.
"If the same case was tried to 10 different juries, it would be interesting to know how many would draw the same conclusion."
This would be a fascinating study where the same real courtroom case is CCTVed to ten juries to render verdicts, but only one of which is the actual jury that will carry legal consequences. The different juries' verdicts could be examined to gain insight on why a certain jury would be more or less swayed by the same case evidence. Is there any law that would prevent such an experiment from being carried out, or have there been any studies with fake cases and fake juries that lead to any meaningful insights on human behavior?
My understanding is that high end legal firms will hire dismissed members of the jury pool to evaluate evidence in the case like the actual jury will eventually do. The reason appears that jurors tend to look at evidence and testimony critically when in a group so this method is a good way to predict the outcome and decide if it's worth risking a final judgement or push for settlement.
@@NukeMarine はじめまして nuke marine. I didn't know you were a legal eagle fan.
@@jakobcox4616 Been following his channel for a while. Actually, Legal Eagle surprised me when he mentioned he had done a few of my Memrise courses for Japanese.
Studies using fake cases and fake juries is research done regularly by law schools. Sometimes they even do reproductions of actual cases using transcripts. Recruitment is a major pain point, who wants MOAR jury duty? Unfortunately, most states have largely ignored research into how to make jury decisions more representative, accurate, precise, and reproducible. The classic problem being the lack of pay for jury duty means that most people of low means gets dismissed from a jury for financial hardship. This creates the famous mismatch:
The criminal defendant is likely to be poor, while his jury of "peers" almost certainly are not poor. This also bleeds into civil trials too, but the parties tend not to be as poor.
This is a thing. Lawyers and social science folk have been doing this. People are not predictable and consistent. Studies show juror error is likely yet it's what we have. Best of a bunch of bad scenarios.
I like how after the 3 categories were read on the legal status of marring a cousin, there were still blank states.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. My guess is that they have laws where the wording make it illegal, but not explicitly illegal, or the reverse where the wording leaves loopholes. For example, in my home state of Vermont, the public decency laws do not forbid public nudity, but state "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior is a punishable crime." (13 V.S.A. §2601: Lewd and Lascivious Conduct) as well as elsewhere defining the removal of one's clothing as lewd behavior (couldn't find the exact law). As such, so long as you are already nude once entering public property and do not act in a lewd or lascivious manner, it is perfectly legal to be nude in public. However, upon this loophole becoming more well known, a number of towns and cities enacted their own policies to prevent people from wondering around public spaces nude.
@@connormawe01 Now I'm just imagining some rich nudist owned some big building in a large city and hosted a nudist event in his building, and once everyone wasn't dressed, he told everyone that it was okay to walk the streets without worry of being arrested
*stares at Texas*
*IT DEPENDS*
@@connormawe01 thank you so much. I’m also a Vermonter and was wondering what was up with Vermont.
That last one does sound like one of my psychology lectures where they explained that you can make someone confess to a crime that they didn't commit. You can plant false memories and or convince someone that their own memories are faulty.
you can -- you can gaslight people into doubting their own memories or begin to accept false memories, especially if they are particularly susceptible (i.e. due to a mental illness)
What I didnt quite get in that example was the part where he said the guy had said he wanted a lawyer but the cops kept asking questions and wore him down, maybe it's another myth but I thought that when you asked for/demanded an attorney they weren't supposed to be able to interrogate you until the attorney was present. You'd think if that were true then the confession would be thrown out, again I may be mistaken on that one as well.
@@Dirtydetective there was a case in the news a few years ago where they claimed that because the person being questioned didn't say verbatim 'I'm invoking my right to an attorney' they couldn't possibly have known he wanted a lawyer, even though he said 'I want a lawyer' or something like that, and it was upheld. So you're right, in theory it should be thrown out, but we live in america
@@StormSought that's completely stupid because nowhere does the constitution say you have to phrase it exactly that way or else it doesn't count
Another thing police will do is interrogate somebody sometimes for hours on end, and in some cases, they get so tired of being questioned they just get worn down and confess to something they didn't do, and that false confession gets them put in prison, even if they later recounted it
I thought all wills stipulated spending a night in a haunted house otherwise the lawyer gets to keep everything
He never said that’s NOT how it works.
Only if the scooby gang can investigate it.
It's a standard clause.
I've found out over the years many people have misconceptions about laws, even law enforcement on many occasions. Its always a good practice to actually look up your state, local, and federal laws to see what it says on paper. Know your rights people.
I would add a caveat to this comment: you're not wrong, and there may be times that a cop is going to write a ticket or take some other action because of that misunderstanding. Cops are NOT walking law libraries, and they make mistakes.
But the time for that discussion is NOT on the side of the road, on the sidewalk, or wherever the occurrence is happening. That's a really good way to find things going even worse for yourself, because now you're being belligerent. No matter how calm and cool you are, arguing with a cop is just stupid. Take your ticket, go to court, and prove your point. Police make arrests, they don't make convictions. You're never going to win that fight, because the argument you're making is for a court, not a cop.
Just because you may be right doesn't mean you're IN the right if you decide to be an ass in that situation.
@@Bad_Wolf_Media It's really easy to say that when it doesn't happen on at least a weekly basis to you by multiple different police officers in your town who have nothing better to do with their time than harass ethnic minorities, and when complying with their illegal orders doesn't mean putting your life in danger to follow a completely made-up law.
@@ivandiaz5791 If that's happening to you, then you need to file a report with a different legal entity, because that sort of harassment is not legal, and steps will be taken. If you don't take that measure, then I assume it's not actually happening to you, and you're just trying to spread a story without an actual basis of fact. But if you decide that, if cops are that keen on screwing with you, and your best option is to get into an argument with them? That's on you.
Unfortunately, due to the way that laws are written and interpreted, it's virtually impossible to ever get a clear answer. Which is why lawyers say that it depends so often as it does. It's a bit of a scam that it's effectively impossible to ever know your legal rights without being an attorney and even then, it often has to go to court in order to get a final ruling.
In order to know whether something is legal or not, you'd have to not just look up the law, but also the precedences that apply to it and the direction in which the courts are moving in that region. Fortunately, in most common situations things are pretty well established, but when they aren't, that's not likely to get you off.
I would but the Alabama constitution and laws are TLDR for a reason.
You look like every Hollywood director’s dream of what a lawyer is supposed to look like...............and you are an actual lawyer.
Yes he is.
you should see him nekid
@@thalivenom4972 what?
He missed the Suits window.
@@thalivenom4972 this comment made me HOLLER 💀💀💀💀💀
Thank you! This has given me so much more hope to get my abuser in jail. We have some solid evidence but some is circumstantial evidence
I hope, in the two years since this was posted that he went down.
When I studied forensics, I learned, unlike in the TV shows, that circumstantial evidence makes up the majority of evidence in most cases. The key evidence is really what ties various pieces of circumstantial evidence together to give the truth of the matter.
Cousin marriage is legal in California and illegal in West Virginia. Huh.
Now you know where the inbred hilljacks really live.
@@timothyneiswander3151 Mm-hm, because we know people would never do something if it's illegal
Checking in from WV, this doesn't surprise me at all. WV is a decent place to live if you like the outdoors, imo.
@@steverichardson8080 I doubt they are illegally getting married but I guess cousins could "shack up". Since this is a law of protection against inbreeding, it is telling us that the people of California prize incest over the dangers of inbreeding.
@@mikehudgins6038 I've actually been and it's beautiful (I went to Pitt, though, so I refuse to say anything nice about it!!!!!)
"If you're a cop you have to tell me" is my absolute favorite myth ever, and I love to extrapolate it to other things like "If you're a vampire you have to tell me" or "If you're a robot you have to tell me" (Asimov's lesser-known fourth law)
I tried to buy drugs from a dealer who asked me that, very officially. I said "Actually, that's not true. Undercover cops wouldn't make it very long if that's how it worked"
He laughed and sold me the drugs anyways
Mine is the Miranda Warnings on arrest. "You have the right to remain silent....if you cannot afford a lawyer...etc"
That's only if they are questioning you. And even if they don't then they may have to toss out the evidence obtained during the interview. Maybe.
Naw, if Asimov's robots were required to self-identify, there's at least one story he couldn't have done. He could have made it about a human claiming to be a robot, I suppose, but that seems easy to suss out.
Don't forget, "If you're married, you have to tell me."
@@IloveGorgeousGeorge we should male that a law though
When we were summoned to the "reading" of my mother's will, the lawyer made a point of saying there is no such thing as a reading of the will. He then proceeded to read my mother's complicated will line by line explaining as he went. It was an excruciatingly painful and horrible event.
I love the scene in Breaking Bad where an undercover cop says "hey ask if I'm a cop, if I'm a cop I have to tell you, right?" and then proceeded to say he wasn't a cop, buy meth, and immediately arrest the guy
*stands holding a gun in the center of a sea of lifeless bodies*
"You can't convict me because your evidence is merely circumstantial"
No it isn't.
@Rob Irvine yes it is. Can you prove that he shot all those people?
Yup. Technically speaking, if someone was stabbed, and my fingerprints are on the knife. Feasibly, the knife could be brand new and I could have simply picked it up to look at it at the store
Can you prove the gun-man killed those people rather than successfully defended himself against the real killer?
@@johanrunfeldt7174 How pathetic do you have to be to grasp at straws like that? "Yes officer, I shot 32 children, but the all had guns made of ice that melted before you got here"
Can we all just appreciate his suit game. Like he's always killin' it. Does he call himself Legal Eagle because he's dressed so fly? I think so.
This might give a hint: ua-cam.com/video/dbLKXqcOTaI/v-deo.html
Actually game down here just to see if anyone else was saying that. Like especially this episode his suit is really nice
I thought he was a furry.
@@LaskyLabs w h a t -
indochino
Is it just me, or is this guy's face perfectly proportioned to be a cartoon character?
I was getting more of a "the love child of Loki and Jim from The Office" type vibe
No,he is a character from gravity fall
He looks like Winston Deavor from the Incredibles lol
Looks like Ralph from WreckItRalph
@@jacquioliver2063 Crossed with Alfredo from Ratatouille.
“Cousin marriage is legal in Alabama,…”
“Well, it goes without saying”-Everyone
It’s more surprising other kinds of marriage also are legal.
@@GZilla311Child marriage?
@@Emil_Stoltz In small country areas that is still big and booming, cuz the less police their are (or better friends they are) the less the laws apply. We gettin back to our olden farm days Yee YEE!
"Nowadays we assume that beneficiaries are literate."
Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out for them!
Especially in Florida, what with all the cousin marriages.
It's perfectly legal to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre that's burning.
what if you don't yell "Fire!" but instead pull out your marshmallows?
So basically, before I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I need to remember to actually light the theater? That's what I been doing wrong...
Yelling "fire" is legal. The ensuing panic and reckless endangerment you caused are what get you in trouble. The loss of earnings & potential damage caused to the theatre as a result of your actions leave you liable to a civil suit.
Basically you can say whatever you like, and not get in trouble for it. You can however get in trouble for peoples reactions that you triggered, if those reactions are a reasonably predictable outcome of your words.
It depends
even if it's not burning to legal to yell it
He looks like John Krasinsky and Ryan Reynolds rolled into one.
Yes someone else noticed!!
Someone else finally noticed.
kinda sounds like a combo of the two as well
That's probably why he seems like such a cool dude just from the thumbnails alone.
he looks like erik the electrik
Hilarious that at 6:35 you explain which cards are valued at 10, but then throw in the term “shoe” without any explanation.
What needs to be explained? You are counting how many of the face cards and tens have been played, so the rest of them are in the shoe waiting to be dealt. If the shoe has been half dealt, and very few face cards and tens have been played, then it's favorable for the player, so they should bet a lot. Oh, the shoe is the item that hold the cards waiting to be dealt (on the right side of the screen at 6:42).
"Everything is legal in New Jersey!" Yeah, except for pumping your own gas...
I think it is actually a quote from Hamilton.
And all firearms.
@@suo_wei_ren_zhe_jie_xin_chen the funny thing is that duels were illegal in New Jersey too at the time
and left turns kinda
@@TheWhale45 As a German: If you honestly think that the 1930s Nazi regime was, in any way or form, "socialist" you should pick up a history book. While it is true that they called themselves that to gather votes from poverty ridden voters, who lost land, homes, furniture, jobs after WW1 in a country with almost no functioning economy, they were simply a fascist right-wing dictatorship.
Whatever floats your boat, though, man.
That first thing "If you ask a lawyer a question, they usually say 'it depends'" I felt that. My dad is in law, and when I was a kid Id ask law questions all the time, always started with "it depends." lolol
The only time an officer can't LEGALLY lie is in a courtroom... But that isn't to say they won't.
But ye, lying during interrogations or casually? No laws against them doing that at all.
Yeah a popular one in that is that if you ask a cop if he IS a cop (like before doing a drug transaction or whatever (cop being undercover) they have to tell you they are a cop. They do NOT have to reveal they are and can outright lie to you about being law enforcement (slippery slope there though as far as if it's viewed as possibly entrapment depending on circumstances though)
@@swampwitch6133 my understanding of entrapment is that you can't be done for a crime a police officer encouraged you to commit. i'm not sure how denying being a police officer could affect that.
@@saelorasinanardiel8983 More specifically. I think it usually isn't entrapment if you decline to do it and they keep pushing you to do it. But I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice so I don't know.
@@jadegrace1312 I think the wording is sort of the police offering you the opportunity to commit a crime that you would not have otherwise gone and done. I believe the classic example is if a cop knows you are in rehab and knocks on your door to offer you drugs. It's entrapment because you were otherwise minding your own business. Now they can stand on a street corner posing as a dealer and wait for you to ask them.
@@Valpo2004 that makes sense
I don't even need a lawyer but I still want to hire this guy as my lawyer lol
When my brother went missing and when we called 911 the operator said we had to wait 24hrs to officially report it 🙃. Laws only matter if law enforcement actually knows the law
Did your brother come back?
Is your brother ok?
It varies by department. Also, the government is not required to solve any specific crime or deal with any specific emergency.
@@stentor1980 That has become obvious recently!
Unfortunately the police doesn’t have to know the law 😔 (I mean, it’s kinda obvious. Police academy takes like half a year, while law school takes way longer) this one is kind of absurd and very very harmful.
I hope your brother was found and everything turned out fine.
Or, as Abbie Hoffman said, "Freedom is being able to yell "Theater" in a crowded Firehouse."
The moral of the last point is 1. Never confess to anything incriminating and 2. If you're in legal jeopardy, don't say anything at all except "I need to speak with my attorney".
I would say "I request to speak with my attorney" because saying i need isn't asking for it, its just a statement
@@ztmackin Your wording might be technically more correct, but any Police who ignored the first version wouldn't get a lot of sympathy from a judge or defense attorney. "Yes, your Honor, he did say that he needed to speak with his lawyer, but we disregarded that and kept interrogating him because..."
If you're not in legal jeopardy - shut up and stay out of legal jeopardy
How many people think that Jon Benet Ramsey's parents were guilty because they called an attorney early on?
@@Foolish188 Yeah, exercising your legal rights may annoy the police and give you bad press. But it's still the right thing to do. If you're seriously sick, than you call a real doctor. And if you are in serious legal trouble, than you need a real lawyer--and sooner, not later after you've already made a mistake.
"Everyone knows you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"
Objection: you need the word "falsely" before the word "yell"
And you are only in trouble if it causes actual harm.
That was a throw away line from a case about sedition. That standard was also abandoned, so there is no such law.
@@Enderslegend There is no specific law but if you knowingly falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and damage results from it you can probably be held liable for that damage in a civil suit
I saw the movie Inglorious Basterds, and not once at the end did anyone shout "Fire!" Even in the end, they obeyed the law!
Fun fact, I helped lobby and got a bill passed here in Colorado that bans the use of “deceptive interrogation” by SROs in schools. So that at least is a start in Colorado
“First cousin marriage is legal in Alabama.”
Of course it is.
Citizen of Alabama here to clear up something. While marrying your cousin is legal, we will avoid you like the plague. Because gross.
Yeah, I like how he started right from it :D
Even tho it was just an alphabetical order.
@@micahjones1451 don't get why its gross.
@paula damn Californians
Sweet home Alabama
A great scene from Breaking Bad is when Badger is sitting on the bench and the undercover cop sits down and tells him that if he asks if he's a cop he's not allowed to lie, Badger asks him, he lies, he buys drugs, they arrest him. 😂 Badger is one of my favorite characters.
I was waiting for him to use this example !!
"You lied to me man, I thought we were gonna hang out" 😂
You being a lawyer, I thought for sure you'd cover the "One Phone Call" myth, which is that a suspect gets one phone call (and only one, apparently) when they're arrested, presumably to call their lawyer.
As I understand it, a suspect generally gets reasonable use of a phone to call a lawyer or family member or whomever to help them, including multiple calls if someone isn't answering, for example.
"One phone call" is a popular myth even outside the USA, thanks to pop culture.
You are not required to be provided use of a phone. In Indiana, the custodial agency only has to inform the public that you are incarcerated, which is usually done on the jail's website, where they post your photo and information. As long as you're not being a jerk, you will almost always be allowed to use a phone, but they do not have to let you.
@@Amaritudine Pop culture gets almost everything wrong. It's at least 50% responsible for the dumbing of America.
@@Evan_Horvath If they deny the use of a phone when asked for it to call a family member, then they must call YOUR lawyer for you, or your family however. Federal laws disallow police to basically trap you in a jail without a way to contact family or friends, and you must be given reasonable ability to make contact with people that can aid you in whatever you may need. Example, a family member caring for an elderly person gets arrested for minor assault charges, the elderly person can NOT take care of themselves, and now the police tell them they have no right to a phone. What is gonna happen? well that person is gonna be either stuck without care, or a police officer has to go over, do a wellness check, and can NOT leave them if they are unable to walk/function on their own.
a good example of circumstantial evidence is if u r indoors and someone comes in dripping wet saying it's raining outside; if u can't see or hear the rain then there is no proof that this person is wet from being in the rain. but logic and experience would make u incredibly likely to believe the person and circumstances.
The main thing is to never say anything in the police interview. It is court where you have to explain yourself, the police interview is just to get a confession or more evidence. It doesn't matter if your innocent or guilty and court is where you say if you witnessed something. The interview is to see if you did it so you could end up being falsely accused if you talk
"Are you saying that, legally speaking, whoever smelled it _isn't_ necessarily the one who dealt it?"
"It depends."
The person in Depends probably dealt it.
Facts.
that depends
There is, however, a long precedent established, such that he who made the rhyme did the crime.
@frigginjerk well, it depends
@@zentiph Yes, but be that as it may, the principle of "Whoever denied it supplied it" may be applicable in these cases.
"If you ask a lawyer a legal question the answer is usually it depends because it usually depends"
Hey! I'm a law graduate working at a criminal defence firm in Scotland. I would absolutely love to see you talk about Scots Law since our legal system has quite a few interesting aspects to it, like: the 'not proven' verdict in criminal trials, the concept of 'hamesucken', and the elements of creating a contract (verbal agreement is enough). Thanks!
"Lawyers prefer to wound you with a pen rather than a sword"
Is he threatening to stab me with a pen?
Yes
_Legally_ speaking... No.
Otherwise... >:)
You wanna see a magic trick?
For legal reasons, no.
I’m gonna make this pen disappear
If the teacher is 10 minutes late we're legally allowed to go home
That’s for colleges
@@arcanum3882 oof
...and if they are 30 minutes late your tuition is free. If only...
@@annoyed707 If it were a cumulative refund for every occurrence, I could have retired at age 19.
I always heard 15 but who am I kidding. Im no scholar
A little more on number 4: Don’t hesitate to report a missing person. The radius of their potential location increases every minute.
I wonder what happens to kidnapped people. Especially the young ones. I doubt some are there for torture
I can ask for amber alerts and golden alerts on my phone from my phone internet provider.
Not for me. They never even leave my basement
Having watched a fair amount of true crime videos, I have absolutely no doubt that you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone...and I was really surprised at how easily you can get convictions with some juries. Who needs evidence when you've got imagination, I guess.
That last case with the fake “confession” should have been tossed because he asked for a lawyer, but didn’t get one and the police continued questioning him.
It depends on how ambiguous the request for a lawyer is. There was a famous case, Louisiana V. Warren Demesme that’s often cited in case law
He has the right to remain silent. I'm guessing they were questioning him while waiting for a lawyer but not denying him a lawyer
Even if you ask for a lawyer, they do not have to get you one unless you demand one.
Yeah, that was super shady. Shit like that should not be legal.
Yeah, unfortunately, you have to be really specific. Like, "I am invoking my right to have a lawyer present. I am invoking my right to remain silent until a lawyer is present." And then just. Don't talk. Even if they offer a glass of water, or coffee, or start being nice, or make you wait a whole ass day.
I once yelled, "Theater!" at a crowded fire.
You can't quit me, I'm fired!
Oh how the turns have tabled
You crack people me up.
@@aspenthemagicgoose7873well, well, well... how the turntables.....
I got cave from the diamonds in minecraft.
"Lawyers prefer to wound you with a pen, not a sword"
Unless you're in Ancient Rome. In Ancient Rome, part of being a successful lawyer means leading a few armies into battle.
But, if my memory serves, in ancient rome sharpend pencils were the assasination weapon of coice since rome it self was a no weapon zone so you coulnt bring actuall weapons.
@ Cicero spent a brief period in Sulla’s cavalry. But he was very much an exception to the rule.
@ Cicero was governor of Cilicia and led an army against bandits
@@rbck8826 In Rome, the pen(cil) was truly mightier.
@@rbck8826 Rome was not a no-weapon zone as far as I'm aware of. Caesar was murdered with daggers for instance.
After my grandmother’s death her lawyer contacted us all and we met in their office to have a reading of the will. And it was in fact dramatic. Lots of yelling from certain “forgotten” family members and the like.
I just want a black hoodie that says "Henchman" on it.
Legal eagle merch idea?
Hired Goon
HENCH HAS KILLED HENCH
One thing I love about this guy is the map he brings up to emphasize the importance of jurisdiction. The law varies state to state and it’s important to understand local and state ordinances l
Because murica... paradise for bureaucracy and stupid laws
Yup. Cause murcias law system sucks xD
@@mugnuzwhy do you think the law system sucks? The US uses a federal system. States can decide their own laws if they don't conflict with the constitution. Why would people in Arkansas want to follow the same laws Vermont has? Enforcing uniform laws onto everyone is racist.
@@troletrain still when one judge decides something the other must follow which is crazy. And if laws are well made its okay everybody needs to follow. And i dont even get what you mean by racist...
"It depends" is often a sign of a person actually being well informed, no matter the discipline. It shows an understanding of the complexity of their area of expertise, no matter what.
Well, it depends...
Except in maths, or other natural sciences. It depends if it depends.
@@gnupfo Of course, it also depends on the question. Especially in math and natural science.
@@gnupfo I mean, even in math, it can depend. 6+6 is 12 under base-10 but in the hexadecimal system 6+6 is c
@@jellyplayz687 Both of these are the same number though, just displayed differently.