Answer: Emergent norm theory
Explanation:
Emergent norm theory is defined as the concept in which collective behavior is described. The theory also has some instances which has led to conflicts and violence in some cases but also proves to be a good cause in other matters.People are gathered in the form of crowd to display collective action towards the sudden crisis.
It consist of four forms i.e.- crowd ,mass,social movements and public. Turner and Killian are the researchers that tend to investigate about the norms development when people interact in crowd.
The answer is C because Kay powers sum like that
You could be found in contempt of court if you speak to a reporter about a matter that is now in court in a way that could be interpreted as seeking to sway a jury or potential jurors.
Actions that disobey a court's authority, disrespect a court, or prevent a court from carrying out its duties are all considered to be in contempt of court.
Criminal and civil contempt are the two types of contempt. Criminal contempt of court is frequently defined as conduct that one might typically connect with the term "contempt of court," such as producing a significant disturbance in the courtroom, screaming at the judge, or declining to testify before a grand jury.
When someone disobeys a court order, it most frequently results in civil contempt of court and harm to the rights of a third party. For instance, civil contempt sanctions may be imposed for failure to pay child support as directed by the court. Usually, the aggrieved party, such as a parent who has not received child support payments as per court order, may bring a civil contempt action.
To know more about civil contempt click here,
brainly.com/question/29689260
#SPJ4
the clause in the fifth amendment was specifically written to restrict a new, powerful government. - apex
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
