Answer:
There are no penalties for underage purchaces or having possesion of tobacco in Maryland.
Explanation:
Answer:
No, because if people fear they are most likely to rise up against things they dont like or rebel.
Explanation:
Joseph Stalin is an example of this
Answer:Did you process model because he argues that the criminal justice system has to protect suspect from errors in the abuse that can occur in the system I believe that is important because everybody deserves a chance. This is because in order for the crime control model to work effectively there needs to be minimal errors
Explanation:
Answer:
Protection against unwanted search and seizure
Explanation:
Freedom of religion wasn't violated because the FBI aren't trying to prevent him from practicing his religion.
Freedom of assembly is wrong because the FBI isn't preventing them from getting each other.
Protection against unlawful accusations is also incorrect because their is no unlawful accusation in intercepting suspicious messages.
This obviously leaves protection against unwarranted searches and seizures because the FBI took Tristians phone without gaining a warrant from a judge that would legally allow them to take it.
Answer:
The major premise is lack of House to pay attention towards the road ahead of him and the rule of contributory negligence. By using this jurisdiction, the plaintiff's damages will be reduced.
Explanation:
- The defendant driver, while he may ultimately be liable if all of the witnesses say he ran the stop sign, will raise the comparative fault of House for failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
- The defenses are the same as they would be if the collision was with another car instead of a bicycle.
- House had an ordinary duty to pay attention to the road ahead of him and keep himself and others safe.
- By watching his books and not the traffic, he breached that duty.
- I'm not saying that defense will be successful, but that's what would be alleged by the car's driver as a defense.
- In most states, the damages to the plaintiff will be reduced by the percentage of his/her comparative fault (also known in some jurisdictions as contributory negligence).
- In some states, if the plaintiff's comparative fault is shown to be over 50%, there will be no recovery at all.
