Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 27

Request for Free Resources for Law Courses

apparent copyvio, see basemetal's comment, with other problems

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Readers,

I have been given the following legal coursework, and I am having difficulties finding free legal textbooks and online resources to help me finish my work. Can anyone kindly suggest any website, where i can search the content relating to the following questions?

Tim drove his car into a gas station and told the attendant to fill it up with unleaded gasoline. The attendant proceeded to pump 10 gallons of gas into Tim’s tank. When he approached Tim for payment, Tim drove off shouting, “Thanks for the freebie, Sucker!”

Tim is guilty of which of the following

A) larceny

B) larceny by trick

C) false pretenses

D) embezzlement

Explain your answer.

3) Larry Norton was charged with felony murder as a result of his setting fire to Linda Crabtree’s home. Linda was upstairs sleeping when the fire was set and she died in her bed during the fire.

If Larry can prove the facts to support his defense, which of the following would least likely remove liability for felony murder?

A) Larry did not intend to kill Linda

B) Larry was insane when he set the fire

C) Larry was coerced by someone else to set the fire

D) Linda died of a heart attack before the fire spread to her bedroom

Explain your answer.

4) Rich and Sam were told by their friend, Hank, that ABC Wholesalers was now utilizing the XYZ Warehouse to store a large overstock of new appliances. Late one night Rich and Sam broke into the warehouse and proceeded to load the merchandise onto their truck. As they were leaving, Sam noticed that the lit cigarette he had inadvertently thrown onto a pile of boxes had ignited the cardboard. Sam had time to put the fire out, without placing himself in danger, but instead climbed into the truck with Rich and sped away. The fire proceeded to burn down the entire warehouse.

At Common Law, Sam and Rich would likely be found guilty of A) burglary and arson

B) larceny

C) larceny and arson

D) burglary, larceny and arson

Explain your answer.

5) John, Mary, Joseph and Mark were all co-owners of the home in which they resided. Because their yard was too small for a pool, they decided to burn down the neighbor’s house, in the hopes that they could later purchase the vacant lot for a cheap price, thus increasing the size of their yard.

Mark was given $25 from the others and sent to the store to pick up gas cans and gasoline with which to start the fire. On the way, he stopped at a bar and proceeded to get drunk with the money he received from his housemates. Afraid of once again returning home with neither the money entrusted to him nor the items he was supposed to purchase, Mark borrowed a gas can from another patron at the bar. He then filled the gas can at a local gas station and ran away without paying for the purchase.

A gas station attendant witnessed the theft and immediately began running down the street in hot pursuit. Distracted with thoughts of how the chase was likely to impact his chances of becoming night manager, the attendant is struck by a moving van and killed.

After reading the above fact pattern, discuss and determine what, if any, charges each of the characters would likely face and any possible defenses that may be offered by each — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.223.168 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked your professors for any recommendations? Your success is of interest to your professors; they want you to learn this material, and they would be most familiar with resources to help you pass their classes. --Jayron 32 10:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, if we're talking US criminal law wouldn't this depend on what state you're in? Then, w/o further information from the OP as to the jurisdiction, how is anyone supposed to be able to make any suggestion? Second, the OP seems to be sitting in Islamabad, Pakistan. What's going on? Contact Basemetal here 11:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We won't do your homework for you. Someone has already posted this at www.homeworkmarket.com, I would suggest checking with them (and paying their fee) if you can't do it yourself. Or, if you are connected with homeworkmarket and are trying to answer the question posted there, maybe you should go elsewhere to obtain your answer and your fee. GregJackP Boomer! 14:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Legal Disclaimer noted) - In respect of English Matters , the guidance UK prosecutors use is here - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, I offer to answer this for free with a mish-mash of Queensland (code law), New South Wales (common law) and Victorian (code law) criminal law, that is sure to convince the professor that it was copied from somewhere on the internet. How's that sound? Do remember: equity does not assist a volunteer (they’ll learn about that later on).--Shirt58 (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOP BEING SO RUDE PLEASE. I'm taking an online distance course, and this explains why i'm so far. Also, I did not ask anyone to do my homework, and all i asked was to help me find some online resources, (ebooks, websites etc). So if you can't help me, stop saying SHIT ! and also, paying people to do my homework is unethical, and i'd never do it.

Good day to y' all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.219.71 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about that. Not all editors here read the actual questions before answering, as you can sometimes see from the answers, comments and attempts to hide e.g. what is a perfectly reasonable and polite question: "Can anyone kindly suggest any website, where i can search the content relating to the following questions?" Sjö (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Anyone inclined to give the OP the benefit of the doubt should Google any ten word excerpt from his post. For example you may get here. Maybe he wasn't trying to get people to do his homework for him. Maybe he was just testing the RD and wasting people's time. On some sites this question is more than a year old. Contact Basemetal here 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1895 newspaper

Can someone help me find which newspaper this was from? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is signed "H. NAP." which was the signature of Henry Nappenbach, an artist with the San Francisco Examiner at the time. I don't think the Examiner's archives are online however.--Cam (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logical guess, and the fact that a San Francisco paper is more likely than most others to carry detailed Hawaiian news from that time period confirms it. But you might want to ask the editor who uploaded the file if he has any further information. That would be User:KAVEBEAR. You could also try contacting the Hawaii State Archives, the source of the image, directly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question. Also HSA have horrible record keeping in their image department and are not staffed to answer inquiries.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Examiner on the online Library of Congress archive?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Here is a list of archives and libraries that have it. Taknaran (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also second question who is the sketch artist whose signature is shown here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it says P. Gray. Some quick searching turns up Percy Gray as the likely artist. [1]. As a painter, he was known as a landscape artist. However, he also paid the bills as a sketch artist for various newspapers, including some in San Francisco. He eventually became the head of the art department for the New York Journal. Not definitive, but a lead, as the time period and location is all correct. --Jayron 32 16:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely since Percy Gray was working for The Morning Call till 1895, when he moved to NYC (see here). A slight hitch is that here he signs his name as "Percy Gray", but that is from a different time period and he possibly used a different signature for his newspaper sketches. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of his paintings on a Google image search, I see a lot of variability in the signatures. One near-constant is that he writes the G like in the newspaper sketches here: with the C portion raised up, and a long tail under it that goes to the baseline. So that matches. --Amble (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*self-trouts* I just realized I told the OP to speak with User:KAVEBEAR, without noticing that it was KAVEBEAR himself who asked the question. Sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Guards vs Citizens' Guards of the Republic of Hawaii

The National Guard of Hawaii were a distinct entity from the Citizens' Guards, correct? If so, can anybody give me information about the Citizens' Guards? When were they formed and how long did they lasted before being disbanded?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Google Books "snippet view" for Hawaii: Our New Possessions. An Account of Travels and Adventure by John Roy Musick (p. 362), which says (only visible in the search result) "On the formation of the provisional government, Colonel J. H. Soper was elected commander-in-chief of the Hawaiian army, which was divided into regulars, National Guards, and Citizens' Guards". Alansplodge (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Kauai: The Separate Kingdom by Edward Joesting says "After the feeble attempt at counter-revolution took place in January 1895, a Citizens' Guard was formed on Kauai, as on other islands. The Citizens' Guard was part-police, part-military." It goes on to say that government rifles were withdrawn (at some stage) but the Guard then used their own weapons with government supplied ammunition. They "continued target practice and held shooting competitions for several years".

Also another "snippet" from the 1895 Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii: And Laws Passed by the Executive and Advisory Councils of the Republic, which tantalisingly says "...or member of the Police Organization known as the 'Citizens' Guard', who shall wear or display a Policeman's badge or a Citizens' Guard badge, or wear a ...", so more information there if you can obtain a copy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting the ~~J R Musick~~ Edward Joesting quote above, Cane Fires: The Anti-Japanese Movement in Hawaii, 1865-1945 by Gary Okihiro (p. 35) has a reference for the Citizens' Guard in 1894. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Australian newspaper report of the 1895 uprising, The Capricornian (Rockhampton, Qld) Saturday 30 March 1895 describes Citizens' Guard members being called out of church on Sunday 6 January in response to the insurrection. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary apprenticeship?

In 1865 the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolished slavery and indentured servitude. Is it possible that it also abolished a practice whereby apprentices were not allowed to resign? On reads that in the 18th century a certain person's parents "apprenticed him to a silversmith when he was 12 years old", etc. Does that mean the master silversmith took over parental rights and the young apprentice working under his instruction could not resign? If so, did the status end when the apprentice reached a certain age such as 18 or 21? I'm basing this only on some vague recollections of reading about "runaway apprentices". If all this is correct, was it abolished by the 13th Amendment? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe technically you're correct, but there were many ways around the law. One was to arrest somebody on trumped-up charges, then put them on a chain gang where they had to work for their food. Another, in the case of indentured servitude, is just to say they owe a massive amount of money, which they must work off. They could possibly quit, but then they would remain deeply in debt. The company town was another way around the law. They could have a seemingly high salary, but soon find the prices at the company store are outrageous, and they have no way to shop elsewhere, so go deeper and deeper into debt. The latest method seems to be for-profit educational facilities, which offer substandard education in return for loans at high interest rates, and they've managed to get student loans exempted from bankruptcy law, so there's no escaping those debts. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 13th amendment only abolished the practice of one person owning another person as one owns objects or other property. It did not abolish the ability of people to enforce contracts (even contracts which are oppressive against one of the parties). There have been other laws which have protected worker's rights subsequent to the 13th amendment, but the 13th amendment only outlawed slavery itself (the act of owning another person as property) and not other forms of oppressive employment. --Jayron 32 00:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening words of the XIII are Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. It's a standard rule of legal construction that whoever wrote the clause did not intend to waste ink on redundancy (except in Norman-and-Saxon doublets like devise and bequeath), so the second concept must be something other than the first concept. Indentured servitude was apparently no longer a thing (as the young people say these days) by then, but I can see wanting to be thorough. —Tamfang (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the initial contract was entered into voluntarily, thus avoiding the "involuntary" aspect, even though you couldn't change your mind later on. Alansplodge (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Involuntary servitude, although the only relevant content is in the lede and isn't sourced, since the article body is taken up largely with libertarian and other views. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Thirteenth Amendment does not seem to have abolished apprenticeships, although it did abolish forms of involuntary servitude other than slavery, such as peonage (compulsory service to compel the repayment of a debt). In its ruling that peonage is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said, "We need not stop to consider any possible limits or exceptional cases, such as the service of a sailor (Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 41 L. ed. 715, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326), or the obligations of a child to its parents, or of an apprentice to his master, or the power of the legislature to make unlawful, and punish criminally, an abandonment by an employee of his post of labor in any extreme cases." Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207, 215 (1905). John M Baker (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]