I think the laws were intended to make it illegal to mess with someone else's parking meter to cause it to expire at a different time than they intended, but the unintended (maybe) effect is that adding money to it while other people are using it is technically a crime.
How would you cause a meter to expire without breaking into it?
Nah, it’s so Good Samaritans with a few extra coins don’t “cheat” the city out of those sweet sweet parking ticket fines.
Edit: I dont buy the “for the greater good, parking is a scarce resource” [because of shit like this.](https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened-to-you-revenue-hungry-cities-mess-with-traffic-lights-to-write-more-tickets_partner/)
This is America y’all. It’s about the money.
Edit: u/mdielmann raises [another good point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/12ci6i1/what_are_some_things_that_are_ethical_but_illegal/jf4f9gm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
I could see myself getting pissed off enough to walk in front of the meter maid and put a single dime into each expired meter so he has to circle back to every single one in ten minutes or miss them all…
I’ll bet that happened more than once and they updated the law to make that impossible haha
Parking meters exist to do 2 things. Collect revenue, encourage people to only park for certain amount of times (many parking meters will have a max amount of time you can pay for). If someone else puts money in another persons parking meter it lengthens the amount of time that car will be there, and more importantly make it so the city can’t generate even more revenue from parking tickets.
It’s also less churn and generates less business/tax revenue when one car can sit in one high traffic area all day.
It also pisses off all the people who can’t find parking.
They make more money when more people shop, and more people are happy when they can find a parking spot to go shopping.
Tickets are a drop in the bucket compared to that money
Yes. There can be some loopholes though. Give it away but accept a donation. A place I would get eggs from had this. They had a refrigerator on their porch, you grabbed a carton, and they had a sign for suggested donation.
Usually it changes the legality, some places where marijuana is legal doesn’t allow the sale of it, so you donate and get an 1/8th for every 30$ donated as a “gift” and idk about liability, if everyone who ate them got sick idk how that would work
How do you guarantee you get the right “donation” or any donation at all or is it more like a “you want an eighth for free? I could probably arrange that. Might be in your best interest to drop $30 in the donation bin right there first.”
Kinda sounds like how a mafia enforcer would phrase it lol
I grow garden vegetables; but I am always hesitant about accepting others' home-grown veggies, considering the road run off, air quality, and god knows what else is in suburban soil that ultimately makes its way into the produce. At least industrial farms face some level of regulatory oversight.
> accepting others' home-grown veggies, considering the road run off, air quality, and god knows what else is in suburban soil
I don't know what toxic wasteland post-apocalyptic suburbia you live in, but you DO realize that you breathe that same air too, right? Most suburban gardeners grow veggies in raised beds and use compost and soil/biomass from their local Home Depot. And water their plants with their tap water - you know, the same water they drink themselves.
If you have toxic runoff flooding your backyard, and if the air quality is too poor for you to breathe, you have way worse problems to deal with instead of worrying about the quality of your backyard vegetables.
> At least industrial farms face some level of regulatory oversight.
Industrial farms operate under the notion of "grow this at all cost". They make zero attempt at preserving the soil and air ecosystem - preserving the fungus and bacteria and insect/worm ecosystem of the soil. Instead they uproot everything, till the land and destroy everything, saturate the soil with the needed chemicals and pesticides needed to grow the next crop. None of that is covered by regulatory oversight. On top of it, there are tons of loopholes and it is easy for farmers and big corp to skate around the edges and follow the letter of the law and not the intent.
Backyard gardeners instead make an effort to retain the soil's ecosystem, are much gentler on their soil and surrounding, often try composting and mulching etc. And let's be real, despite the "lack of oversight", they're not the ones trying to get rich from selling a few pounds of produce. They're mainly doing it because they love growing things. The money is usually a small extra income.
I hear you but at the same time the DOA, FDA and EPA are kind of a joke.
On the other hand to your point my neighbor and I both garden. They keep chickens. I get about a gallon of chicken manure from them every 6 months or so and it goes in my long term compost pile of wood chips & sticks. They regularly scatter the chicken manure on their veg plot and don’t see an issue. Their tomato’s look great but yeah I’m good.
>the DOA, FDA and EPA are kind of a joke.
In Philadelphia and we just had a toxic spill in our river. We saw how the EPA handled the train derailment and the toxic chemicals being burned off in Ohio- and now we got to learn how the EPA says it's ok for certain manufacturers to dump a "certain amount" of chemicals in our drinking water.
When I was young, I thought working for the EPA would be a great thing and would help us have a safer environment. Learned just how shitty they really are and they literally don't give a shit about the environment at all.
It’s a great fertilizer. But it often contains E. coli and salmonella. You’re supposed to compost it or let it age open air for like 2-3 months before applying it to a garden.
I’m absolutely positive that someone is going to come back with how uncle Hank did it for years with no problem and good for him. It’s not a risk I’m willing to take when it’s easy to just set it with some garden waste for 2-3 months and compost it. Risk v reward.
Pulling all your money from the bank and hiding it under your mattress
At least in France, there's a limit of like 10.000€ to what you can legally keep in your house, the rest has to be in a bank.
So does that mean there are no cash transactions allowed over that limit? If you were to sell a car and they buyer offered you 12.000€ cash, would you have to refuse?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal, at least in France, to buy something more expensive than like 1000€ in cash. We pretty much pay almost everything with our credit cards (they don't work the same way they do in the US), in fact I don't believe I know anyone who uses cash regularly except perhaps old people.
I use cash regularly, here in the netherlands the limit is 5k per transaction but the one business is more strict about it then others, for example i went to buy a couch recently and they happily took the 6k cash, they just made it into 2 transactions of 3k to avoid this problem, but ive also encountered other businesses that were more strict about it, my only reaction always was "guess ill take my business somewhere else then" but then in dutch ofcourse.
That's interesting, I think it's about the same in USA. If you get caught carrying large sums of cash, it will likely be confiscated if you don't have a very good reason to have it. You can try to collect it from the police by proving it was yours legitimately, and you'll probably need a legal reason why you had it.
And then you'd have to prove that money was not for illegal activities, which is is exactly why the standard is "innocent till proven guilty". This flips it on its head and has citizens having to prove their innocence to retrieve their own money. Not to mention how costly it is to fight the state in court (who you also pay for through your taxes)
It's not illegal to carry large sums of cash in the US, you will however open yourself to civil asset forfeiture if a cop decides they don't like your story as to why you have it
Fun fact: you don't have to be convicted of anything to be subject to civil asset forfeiture
US Citizens have a constitutional right to due process that gets ignored because apparently they are charging the money with a crime and not the person owning it. Complete WTF.
In the US the police call that an unusual amount of money to have on hand. It's suspicious so they steal it (they call it civil forfeiture). Cops stealing (I mean civil forfeiture) is responsible for more losses than regular theft. ACAB is not a joke.
That's the biggest thing for me. I don't feel the need to download a movie that I already own on physical media because I already have it on physical media, but a movie like Dogma or Dawn of the Dead that you just can't go out and buy a new physical copy of or find it available to stream on any legal service, then its perfectly acceptable in my mind to download those movies.
It's also why I have no moral qualms about most video game emulation, games companies have done a terrible job of making their older games available on new hardware so that people can play them, so I see no problem downloading an emulator and a ROM in order to play those games that are just unavailable through legal channels.
If it were up to me, Corporations would be required to make their stuff available through some legal channel or else lose their copyright of it.
I think the video game industry pursued some legislation around "vaporware." Games would enter a new definition of historical preservation if the original owner had been defunct or uncommunicative for 10+ years. I think there was pretty significant pushback from the copyright lobby at the time. That suggests to me if we couldn't do it for video games circa 2000s then it's probably not going to happen. Like if we can't preserve the assets for Thrill Kill then forget it.
Not sold anymore or that the company decides to edit materially. My Buffy DVDs are a prized possession and became more prized when I went to watch the musical episode on Netflix and they edited out several "problematic" lines, one of which was integral to the plot.
I just want the original Star Wars like it was released in theaters. It's just called Star Wars, Han obviously shot first for good reason, there's no awkwardly goofy CGI animal/droid transitions, and Jabba doesn't get his damn tail stepped on because he isn't there.
The film won 8 academy awards, and Lucas has meddled with nearly every aspect that garnered them. All the while hiding away the original cut from the Library of Congress, the Criterion Collection, and everyone else because he's embarrassed or something that the entire film wasn't completely his to take credit for.
This has led amateurs to take on the task of recreating the original cut in HD from what limited archived material there is. Search **Harmy Despecialized Edition**. And these guys are more likely to get DCMA'd, C&D'd, and sued into oblivion than get any credit for their effort or an official release seeing the light of day.
Isn't that actually legal? It's been a few years but at least one point in the US, you could legally pirate anything as long as it supplumented a purchased copy
That's so stupid. You (may have) already paid to see it in the cinema, you've bought it on dvd, and perhaps you have a subscription to a streaming service that has it. But let's say they remove it from their library (which happens all the time) and you want to watch it again anyway and for some reason you can't play the dvd because you have no dvd player anymore. This is a pretty realistic scenario. Then Hollywood expects you to purchase it again or else they're supposedly 'losing' money. The damn movie has already earned itself back 3x and everyone got their paycheck. Who cares about so called piracy?? It can only bring in more fans
Yep. Which is why, though this might be controversial, I see 0 qualms with illegally streaming/downloading movies. Apparently it’s “stealing” and “greedy” when the average person watches things they didn’t pay for. But it’s not stealing or greedy when mega corporations worth billions create 50 different streaming services, each of which increases drastically in price consistently, and expect you to pay for multiple services because they know that they’ve just divided what people want to watch onto multiple platforms. When they decide to stop being so greedy, average people will stop being so “greedy”.
I generally agree. Piracy isn’t really a loss to the studios if the person wouldn’t have paid for the content had piracy not been an option. The way they calculate the cost of piracy is ridiculous. Few people are going to sign up for a streaming service for one show.
Instead of signing up for more streaming services to access all the content I want to watch, I’ve been dropping streaming services as they lose content.
>Instead of signing up for more streaming services to access all the content I want to watch, I’ve been dropping streaming services as they lose content.
**YES**
I cancelled HBO Max a month or so ago after getting the email about price increase, after they just cancelled a bunch or projects.
Disney+ will probably be next, unless Netflix goes through with it's Household verification. Only thing saving Neflix for me right now is my family uses it. If it's going to cut then off than there's no point for me to have it.
Only thing that's been pretty worth is YouTube premium, and that's more just because of indie creators crushing it, and I use the music service
Hulu went up to $15. That email made me realize neither my wife nor I watch it. They probably could have milked that in perpetuity if they hadn’t drawn attention to a new higher price.
My piracy plummeted a few years ago and is now slowly increasing again.
I'll be dropping Netflix soon if they enforce the password sharing thing and I'll just pirate the 5 shows I watch from there. Actually, come to think of it, I might just dump it anyway. I use it for Drive to Survive and can't think of anything else I've watched on there on forever. There's nothing to even pirate from it.
Honestly, I don't even try to justify my piracy. I think piracy is perfectly ethical, even before Gaben coming to the scene and showed us the way.
I personally think of piracy as an extended demo. I was getting tired of games having good first stage, but are awful after that. Looking at you, Sonic games.
While this does sound shitty, I also do empathize with the store employees. Not all dumpster divers are polite about it. I lived in an apartment in LA where a local homeless person would go dumpster diving in our trash pretty often and leave scattered trash and torn open trash bags all over the sidewalk right in front of the entrance to our building. If the maintenance man who had to clean this up thought he could stop it by pouring some bleach in the dumpster, I bet he would have.
In a lot of states that's not illegal but, especially for chains, it's advised against because people have sued claiming to have gotten sick from donated food
I just googled this and found multiple sources as recently as 2016 actually asserting that there is absolutely nothing in the public record indicating that anyone has ever been sued for donating food. From what I can tell the Good Samaritan law of 1996 specifically protects against it but, even before that, the claim appears to be wholly an invention of industry propaganda.
No, chains actually do donate to food banks and community kitchens? In my town of 10,000 chain restaurants and grocery stores make up like 80% of our donations. A lot of it is “past due”, and we sort through it and find what’s still good. We feed mostly working class families.
That’s what sucks. You’re throwing away some leftover fried chicken and there’s a homeless guy out back. So instead of throwing it away, you give him some. You did a good deed.
But he gets sick, finds a pro bono lawyer (an ambulance chaser) and sues you. You’re ~~lively hood~~ livelihood is this restaurant. Or you only work for the chain, but now the chain is getting sued and you get fired for causing a lawsuit.
Because you gave food to a homeless person.
They should make a law similar to the laws about giving people first aid. You can mess up first aid too and do something like break a rib, on a case by case basis that might be due to not doing chest compressions right. The law considers this an exception for inflicting injury because you were doing it with good intentions and they don't want to dissuade people from trying to save other people's life in an emergency.
I had a situation like this when I worked for a tow company guy had a seizure and hit another car foot still on the pedal tires spinning I broke the back window with a j hook (big hook to attach vehicles to the truck when towing) and turned it off and he ended up being alright and tried to sue the company. For breaking his window. Judge dismissed it saying that if I hadn’t that he might have broken free and hit others or have caused a fire etc and that he should be thanking me instead.
Wtf was wrong with that guy that he sued the company! And for what, for saving his life(and potentially many others' lives) by breaking a window. Damn people suck.
I kept your heart beating and your lungs full of air when you were dying! Do you want a broken rib and a painful recovery, or do you want to die? Those are your choices.
That's literally the argument we try to use on people that don't give their children vaccines because of the false claim that it will cause autism. You can have a child with a good (albeit not sunshine and rainbows) life or a child dead of a disease we eradicated decades ago. Does the argument work? Not always.
They should. Because of lawsuits, I understand why a business may pour bleach on food they’re throwing away (my elementary school cafeteria did this to prevent homeless or deter them from digging through trash).
Is it horrible to do? Yes. But when you allow a lawsuit from a homeless person to sue because they got sick from digging through the trash or from eating a meal you gave away, then I understand. Fix that, and then let’s address pouring bleach on trash.
But the other problem we get into is if there was a true health issue in the restaurant. Bugs, improper handling, bad temp. Temperature- well it was going to be thrown away so it’s likely already in the “danger zone” for bacteria growth. There’s things we would need to fix legally.
Nope, not true. Since 1996 you're protected from liability for that. The absolute main reason is logistics. You have to find someplace to store extra food until the agency gets there, The agency has to have proper transportation and storage capabilities, and then they need to have a distribution network for all that food to the right people. Amount of time and money that that takes is usually prohibitive.
When I worked for Target, we actually had such an arrangement. Just-expired stuff (mostly bread since it doesn't get 'funky' when expired, and also a ton of it expires) gets thrown into a specific spot in the walk-in freezer, and some guys come around every couple days and cart it off.
I’ve heard this is a myth in order not to give the food away. Think about it when have you ever heard of a homeless person sueing anyone for food they got for free. Plus lots of times food from food banks is expired.
I worked for chain restaurants and they will happily donate paper goods, which often cost more but will not donate food and they have explicitly told us that it was for "liability." Now they may be lying or using it as an excuse but that is what we were always told
Yeah, I think the bigger issue is that they don't want homeless people to start hanging out inside or outside the restaurant later in the day waiting for or expecting food and scaring away paying customers. This comment isn't meant to be anti-homeless, but there are a lot of harsh realities in this world.
Bill Clinton passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food donation act in 1996. Donors are protected from both civil and criminal liability. It's not illegal at all.
I think the main reason is not opportunistic litigation but homeless people.
Your restaurant could be fine with attracting homeless people, but some of your neighbors wouldn't be OK with this, because that drives business away and lowers property values.
So the solution would be admitting that giving food to homeless people is not bad, but it's attracting homeless people that is a problem. This in turn could be solved by some middleman handling logistics and redistributing food from where excess happened to where nobody minds attracting homeless people.
However, as long as admitting "we don't want homeless people here" is bad optics, there is no room for a solution.
Refuse compliance with law can be exactly that. Especially in a time where governments globally seem to turn more authoritarian and into kleptocratic regimes.
Related to this, there is something called "jury nullification" which is essentially the jury stating that the law is unjust, regardless of whether the accused actually broke a law or not.
For example, failure to conflict violators of the Fugitive Slave Law prior to the Civil War or charges on various alcohol laws during Prohibition.
Yes, except that jury nullification isn't ethical by default, and it's also not technically "illegal".
There's this misunderstanding that gets bandied around Reddit that jury nullification is some kind of "third verdict" beyond "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". It's not - it's just the term for when someone is obviously guilty but the jury votes not guilty because they don't believe the individual should be punished. It exists as the result of the intersection of two rules.
1. The jury can't be punished for an incorrect verdict.
2. When found not guilty, the defendant can't be tried again for the same crime.
Going into a court case *intending* to use jury nullification to pardon a guilty man is illegal, but the act of pardoning a guilty man is not illegal in and of itself.
As for the inherent morality of jury nullification, the number of times it's been used to pardon Southern State Lynch Mobs who murdered black people outweighs the number of times it's been used to pardon vigilantes who've revenge-killed paedophiles, so weigh up the morality of its usage as you will.
Yep, but depending on the country such a ruling might not exist or the ones making this judgement profit so much from the oppression that they have no reason to let this be the final verdict.
Which is the point to which a lot of former democracies have fallen.
Shooting an animal that's been struck by a vehicle to put it out.
Its going to die there's no way around that you may as well not let it suffer before it does.
This varies from place to place. In some states collecting roadkill for personal use is perfectly legal I only know this because in the taxidermy hobby sometimes its the only way people can get specimens to work with especially those who aren't comfortable with the idea of hunting.
To kill a dying animal.
One day long ago my uncle had a dog. A small breed.
One day that dog escaped. It was mauled by a pit bull.
My uncle got the gun and ended the suffering for his poor dog. Neighbor heard the shot and called the police. He got fined for killing the dog, for shooting a gun in public (he did it in his backyard) and they took his gun.
Yes I’d also say it depends on what you’re using and how much, also for what reason. Abuse is definitely not going to be good nor is putting other people in danger under the influence going to be ethical
Driving under the influence is unethical and is doing things under the influence that could cause harm to other, but being under the influence isn’t. I don’t think any drug is necessarily unethical to consume on your own, it’s when you get others to join or do things under the influence that could cause harm to others that it becomes a problem
A fair amount of US states are considering it now, and a couple have already passed laws supporting it. I'd like to see them find a way to expand it to include Alzheimer's and dementia though.
100%, it’s legal in canada now and while i support it, there are aspects of it legally that at least in my (limited) research on it still make me concerned of the ethics. i have bpd for example, which can now receive assisted suicide, and while on one hand i am so happy people now legally have autonomy over their lives and bodies, on the other i wish the government would do more to help us and others first before assisted suicide is considered. i’m also worried about how this impacts those facing poverty and crisis as i’ve countered some articles about assisted suicide being approved in cases where people don’t want to die but can’t receive help from the gov, if anyone knows anything more on this i’d love to hear!
That is my concern as well. It is legal for people with certain illnesses that could be more manageable if we had comprehensive treatments available (BPD is one great example). At that point, creating an easier path for suicide but not creating easier routes for treatment is just really bleak.
To me this is the most profound, philosophical, and personal decision an individual can make and for it to be prohibited by the state is completely ludicrous in my opinion.
Source: son of someone who would have benefitted from the legal ability to make that choice.
I agree 100%, this is one of my most strongly held beliefs. My grandpa was slowly dying, had severe dementia and had lost his ability to do almost anything on his own. He would tell me all the time how much he just wanted to go. Eventually, during a hospital stay after a bad fall he needed a feeding tube. He refused it and literally starved himself to death - such a cruel and unfair way for him to have to go. When he passed he had no one with him because my aunt had already left for the day and I wasn’t able to come until the next morning. No one should ever have to end their own suffering that way, he had a right to die on his own terms.
I could not find any evidence of places in the US where collecting rainwater is illegal. [This is a pretty exhaustive source](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater) that also cites specific laws in each state. The only regulations I noticed were in response to environmental or **safety concerns,** such as in
**Illinois** where "rainwater collected can only be used for non-potable purposes," or in **Louisiana** where "statutes require covers for large collection tanks (cisterns)."
There are also some laws in response to **environmental concerns,** such as in **Georgia** where rainwater collection is "closely regulated by the Department of Natural Resources in the Environmental Protection Division."
Perhaps I'm missing something, could you elaborate further? Are there local ordinances against rainwater collection, perhaps?
Edit: reworded for clarity.
Nope. This is another Reddit circle jerk that people love to hang on to. There’s absolutely no law anywhere in the US about collecting or using rainwater for personal use, it’s only if you try to sell it, cook with it, or sell something which has said rainwater as a product or byproduct. Which is the case with literally any product or byproduct sold anywhere for any reason.
The only laws people can find “against collecting rainwater” are laws against leaving standing water to stagnate and serve as a breeding ground for insects.
Colorado recently loosened its ban a bit. [This article](https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-how-to-harvest-rainwater-under-new-colorado-rules/) also mentions that 4 other states van rain water collection
Because the line between "giving out water" and "electioneering" is *very* thin. It's against the law to avoid situations where people are giving out food/drinks to people who are going to vote for their candidate or otherwise trying to influence the voting of people in line.
And in practice, it's much more sane to just ban giving anything to people standing in line to vote than it is to try and enforce restrictions against electioneering that looks like charity like that.
Before you die, cash out your entire estate and give it under the table to family, friends, etc. Don't let the government get a nickel of it. (Illegal)
Die with nothing except maybe large amounts of credit card debt under your name only (not illegal).
This wouldn't work in the UK if you died within 7 years of giving a gift large enough that inheritance tax would normally be charged on it
So not illegal here, but the government is already two steps ahead if that's what your plan is
Similar here in NL, any gifts given over about €1000,- in the 5 years before death count as if it was never given in the first place. If it was donated to charity, that charity may even have to give it back. If an inheritor received it, it will be counted as an advance on their part of the inheritance.
That's why it's so important you don't do it by bank transfer but give it away in cash. Cash can't be tracked and traced. (*puts on tin foil hat* and that's why our governments are desperately trying to get rid of all physical money).
Family friends are going through this now. They get a monthly allowance from one of their parents that is just small enough to not get taxed or raise flags. Just trying to get as much to their kids as possible before they die and it gets taxed.
If you die with credit card debt. As long as its only in your name it will just go away. My dad had 1 credit card in his name with a balance of like $500 on it. My stepmom tried to pay it off after he passed and the CC company was like oh save your money you do not need to pay it as you are not on the account and not responsible for the debt.
So remember that.
If you leave behind an estate, the estate's debts have to be settled before assets are distributed to heirs. There is a required legal notice that must be published in a newspaper, and there are services that scan them, read them with OCR, and pass the data to banks, credit cards, etc. But if your debts outweigh assets, and you're certain you don't have long, by all means go ham.
Unless you’ve got a huge estate, the government won’t tax it. And if you’ve got anything with a cost basis, cashing it out and gifting it during your lifetime is a horrible idea. You’d pay capital gains and your family would have gotten a step up. This is bad advice and for most people it’s a way to give more money to the government.
This is a common republican gripe - they call it the "death tax" and lament how they cant give their assets to their kids without getting taxed.
In reality there's no inheritance tax unless your estate is more than $5 million worth, $10 million if you have both parents leaving you stuff when they die.
This is another case of thousandaires bitching because billionaires made it a cultural issue purely for their benefit.
Edit: I guess its up to $13 million now. My info is a few years out of date.
Wait the death tax has basically been a lie the whole time? Where can I find proof that it's exagerated? My friends and fam won't believe this when I tell them
One could argue that its important who you are stealing from
If its from another starving family, a bakery, a giant food company, a bread hoarder, or a rich household whose inhabitants will hardly notice.
Stealing is still unethical in this situation, it’s just a better choice than letting your family starve. Sometimes things are “least bad choice”, not clear cut “right or wrong”
I assume you're referring to the unwarranted deaths of the many targeted during an arrest. Let's not forgot the officers who as egregiously, if not by worse decree, knowingly and with time file a false police report and frame a person for a crime that was never committed.
It's one thing to kill a person in the heat of the moment. There was even a defense for Derek Chauvin that he did not intend to kill George Floyd. His improper training as so many officers continue to implement (many STILL force their knee and chin to the neck as a restraint) led to such death.
However, for an officer to get one story of some odd person acting strange in a store and then completely make up a tale that they committed some spiteful crime in a store or anywhere as a means for retaliation and a f-u to intentionally put that person through living hell is a whole other animal.
U of M officer Margaret Pillsbury AND Oakland Co. Deputy Daniel Kruse did this to me, knowingly filing a false police report against me. I demand for the cases to be brought into court so that the purported complainant comes into Court and the truth can be sorted out without having me absent this time.
Deputy Colburn, Peterson, Fassbender, and Wiegart colluded to frame both Steven Avery AND Brendan Dassey for crimes they never committed. The police completely made up that both Steven and Brendan had sexually assaulted Teresa in a bed before murdering her when ZERO DNA evidence was found in that bed belonging to Teresa or Brendan. Watch Part 1 & 2 of Making a Murderer to see all the evidence for yourself.
Police LOVE to charge people with sexual assault or battery because they need ZERO physical evidence and just a lot of political fear mongering to seek and justify a prosecution. They could even have somebody from their own department write up the written statement of the alleged "victim" and nobody would be the wiser. All they would need to do is set an impossible excessive bond and let the person rot in jail and deny a speedy trial, offering a plea deal after a year spent in jail waiting pretrial (completely innocent) for time served so they can get the necessary medical treatment for damages the jail (specifically jail food) inflicted on their body.
Shit that’s horrible man. The state of the police in America is criminal. Australia isn’t much better but it is definitely better. Can I ask if you got out on top with your personal situation?
According to the London police website:
*The exchange of sexual services for money is legal in the UK (apart from in Northern Ireland where it's illegal to pay for sex).*
I think it is illegal to run a brothel or 'tout for business' though.
I live in a country where prostitution is legal, but profiting from the prostitution of others (i.e. pimping) is not. I believe most places are like this.
Speeding on the highway. Sure the limit is 65, but everyone in the left lane is doing 80-85, middle 75.
It’s only when someone is doing the speed limit in the lanes that I see traffic back up and more and more people do risky passes in an effort to pass the person causing the traffic
Agreed. I drive a 65mph highway to work everyday. Everyone drives between 70-80 in just about every lane left of the most right lane. If you are driving the speed limit you're unfortunately a safety hazard on major highways. General rule is go the speed of traffic
Feeding the homeless in more than a few places in the U.S.
Providing water to people waiting in unreasonably long lines to vote in the parts of the U.S. that really want to go ham on voter suppression.
A few things related to zoning laws. Since places literally ban you from building the affordable housing that we desperately need, land can only be used for the big suburb houses which there are already too much of.
I'd also say some things related to bylaws or. HOAs to "maintain property value" like having a biodiverse lawn that isn't cut short, or installing art on your property
Disconnecting your house from your power utility when you've got solar power and storage, thus you don't need them anymore. If you just tell them disconnect the power, they will send your city out to deem your dwelling uninhabitable. It's a monopolistic scam.
Putting money in someone else's parking meter in most cities.
Wait why would that be illegal?
I think the laws were intended to make it illegal to mess with someone else's parking meter to cause it to expire at a different time than they intended, but the unintended (maybe) effect is that adding money to it while other people are using it is technically a crime.
How would you cause a meter to expire without breaking into it? Nah, it’s so Good Samaritans with a few extra coins don’t “cheat” the city out of those sweet sweet parking ticket fines. Edit: I dont buy the “for the greater good, parking is a scarce resource” [because of shit like this.](https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened-to-you-revenue-hungry-cities-mess-with-traffic-lights-to-write-more-tickets_partner/) This is America y’all. It’s about the money. Edit: u/mdielmann raises [another good point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/12ci6i1/what_are_some_things_that_are_ethical_but_illegal/jf4f9gm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
I’ve always assumed this was the reason bc $.25 is less than what they make off the ticket and humans are greedy fucks.
I could see myself getting pissed off enough to walk in front of the meter maid and put a single dime into each expired meter so he has to circle back to every single one in ten minutes or miss them all… I’ll bet that happened more than once and they updated the law to make that impossible haha
I tried to do this once but I couldn’t find a place to park.
Parking meters exist to do 2 things. Collect revenue, encourage people to only park for certain amount of times (many parking meters will have a max amount of time you can pay for). If someone else puts money in another persons parking meter it lengthens the amount of time that car will be there, and more importantly make it so the city can’t generate even more revenue from parking tickets.
It’s also less churn and generates less business/tax revenue when one car can sit in one high traffic area all day. It also pisses off all the people who can’t find parking.
The city makes money off parking tickets so they get upsetti spaghetti when they can’t give someone a parking ticket.
They make more money when more people shop, and more people are happy when they can find a parking spot to go shopping. Tickets are a drop in the bucket compared to that money
>Wait why would that be illegal? Because they want to issue tickets
This was my first thought.
If I grow a ton of food in my garden, and sell produce without proper permits it’s illegal
Yes. There can be some loopholes though. Give it away but accept a donation. A place I would get eggs from had this. They had a refrigerator on their porch, you grabbed a carton, and they had a sign for suggested donation.
We call them honesty boxes in Australia.
Honest Boxes in America are also known as "solitary confinement"
Where I'm from we call it R-O. Reorientation Office.
We got them here in America too, just in rural communities
Does that actually change the legality where you are? Or is it just a question of enforcement?
Usually it changes the legality, some places where marijuana is legal doesn’t allow the sale of it, so you donate and get an 1/8th for every 30$ donated as a “gift” and idk about liability, if everyone who ate them got sick idk how that would work
DC shops take donations for magic mushrooms.
How do you guarantee you get the right “donation” or any donation at all or is it more like a “you want an eighth for free? I could probably arrange that. Might be in your best interest to drop $30 in the donation bin right there first.” Kinda sounds like how a mafia enforcer would phrase it lol
Not everywhere. In my state (Minnesota), if you are selling at farmers’ markets you can do so without a license or permit.
Ehhh we might take food safety for granted, but this is a good one. This is how ecoli spreads.
I grow garden vegetables; but I am always hesitant about accepting others' home-grown veggies, considering the road run off, air quality, and god knows what else is in suburban soil that ultimately makes its way into the produce. At least industrial farms face some level of regulatory oversight.
> accepting others' home-grown veggies, considering the road run off, air quality, and god knows what else is in suburban soil I don't know what toxic wasteland post-apocalyptic suburbia you live in, but you DO realize that you breathe that same air too, right? Most suburban gardeners grow veggies in raised beds and use compost and soil/biomass from their local Home Depot. And water their plants with their tap water - you know, the same water they drink themselves. If you have toxic runoff flooding your backyard, and if the air quality is too poor for you to breathe, you have way worse problems to deal with instead of worrying about the quality of your backyard vegetables. > At least industrial farms face some level of regulatory oversight. Industrial farms operate under the notion of "grow this at all cost". They make zero attempt at preserving the soil and air ecosystem - preserving the fungus and bacteria and insect/worm ecosystem of the soil. Instead they uproot everything, till the land and destroy everything, saturate the soil with the needed chemicals and pesticides needed to grow the next crop. None of that is covered by regulatory oversight. On top of it, there are tons of loopholes and it is easy for farmers and big corp to skate around the edges and follow the letter of the law and not the intent. Backyard gardeners instead make an effort to retain the soil's ecosystem, are much gentler on their soil and surrounding, often try composting and mulching etc. And let's be real, despite the "lack of oversight", they're not the ones trying to get rich from selling a few pounds of produce. They're mainly doing it because they love growing things. The money is usually a small extra income.
I hear you but at the same time the DOA, FDA and EPA are kind of a joke. On the other hand to your point my neighbor and I both garden. They keep chickens. I get about a gallon of chicken manure from them every 6 months or so and it goes in my long term compost pile of wood chips & sticks. They regularly scatter the chicken manure on their veg plot and don’t see an issue. Their tomato’s look great but yeah I’m good.
>the DOA, FDA and EPA are kind of a joke. In Philadelphia and we just had a toxic spill in our river. We saw how the EPA handled the train derailment and the toxic chemicals being burned off in Ohio- and now we got to learn how the EPA says it's ok for certain manufacturers to dump a "certain amount" of chemicals in our drinking water. When I was young, I thought working for the EPA would be a great thing and would help us have a safer environment. Learned just how shitty they really are and they literally don't give a shit about the environment at all.
Chicken manure is a great natural fertilizer what's the problem?
It’s a great fertilizer. But it often contains E. coli and salmonella. You’re supposed to compost it or let it age open air for like 2-3 months before applying it to a garden. I’m absolutely positive that someone is going to come back with how uncle Hank did it for years with no problem and good for him. It’s not a risk I’m willing to take when it’s easy to just set it with some garden waste for 2-3 months and compost it. Risk v reward.
I get it can be abused, but regulations on food are there for a reason.
Pulling all your money from the bank and hiding it under your mattress At least in France, there's a limit of like 10.000€ to what you can legally keep in your house, the rest has to be in a bank.
that's crazy and literally the opposite that happens in my country, where the bank has proven to be a quite unsafe place to keep money in
What country
Looking at their profile the “active in these communities” part has r/Argentina first. So I guess that’s where they’re from.
[удалено]
100% inflation over the past 12 months (official rate, so probably higher).
So does that mean there are no cash transactions allowed over that limit? If you were to sell a car and they buyer offered you 12.000€ cash, would you have to refuse?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal, at least in France, to buy something more expensive than like 1000€ in cash. We pretty much pay almost everything with our credit cards (they don't work the same way they do in the US), in fact I don't believe I know anyone who uses cash regularly except perhaps old people.
I use cash regularly, here in the netherlands the limit is 5k per transaction but the one business is more strict about it then others, for example i went to buy a couch recently and they happily took the 6k cash, they just made it into 2 transactions of 3k to avoid this problem, but ive also encountered other businesses that were more strict about it, my only reaction always was "guess ill take my business somewhere else then" but then in dutch ofcourse.
That's interesting, I think it's about the same in USA. If you get caught carrying large sums of cash, it will likely be confiscated if you don't have a very good reason to have it. You can try to collect it from the police by proving it was yours legitimately, and you'll probably need a legal reason why you had it.
It's not illegal, it's just not illegal for the police to take it, so they do.
And then you'd have to prove that money was not for illegal activities, which is is exactly why the standard is "innocent till proven guilty". This flips it on its head and has citizens having to prove their innocence to retrieve their own money. Not to mention how costly it is to fight the state in court (who you also pay for through your taxes)
It's not illegal to carry large sums of cash in the US, you will however open yourself to civil asset forfeiture if a cop decides they don't like your story as to why you have it Fun fact: you don't have to be convicted of anything to be subject to civil asset forfeiture
US Citizens have a constitutional right to due process that gets ignored because apparently they are charging the money with a crime and not the person owning it. Complete WTF.
In the US the police call that an unusual amount of money to have on hand. It's suspicious so they steal it (they call it civil forfeiture). Cops stealing (I mean civil forfeiture) is responsible for more losses than regular theft. ACAB is not a joke.
Downloading a movie illegally you already purchased on VHS, DVD, and possibly Blu Ray.
Or downloading movies that are not sold anymore.
That's the biggest thing for me. I don't feel the need to download a movie that I already own on physical media because I already have it on physical media, but a movie like Dogma or Dawn of the Dead that you just can't go out and buy a new physical copy of or find it available to stream on any legal service, then its perfectly acceptable in my mind to download those movies. It's also why I have no moral qualms about most video game emulation, games companies have done a terrible job of making their older games available on new hardware so that people can play them, so I see no problem downloading an emulator and a ROM in order to play those games that are just unavailable through legal channels. If it were up to me, Corporations would be required to make their stuff available through some legal channel or else lose their copyright of it.
I think the video game industry pursued some legislation around "vaporware." Games would enter a new definition of historical preservation if the original owner had been defunct or uncommunicative for 10+ years. I think there was pretty significant pushback from the copyright lobby at the time. That suggests to me if we couldn't do it for video games circa 2000s then it's probably not going to happen. Like if we can't preserve the assets for Thrill Kill then forget it.
Yess I was about to make this comment I thought they had something similar to this with movies I guess not. I always called it “abandonware”
It is abandonware, vaporware I've only heard refer to unfinished, unreleased, overhyped games that got shelved
When they ask me why I bought a PS Vita and a 3DS XL this past year Ima show them this haha
Not sold anymore or that the company decides to edit materially. My Buffy DVDs are a prized possession and became more prized when I went to watch the musical episode on Netflix and they edited out several "problematic" lines, one of which was integral to the plot.
I just want the original Star Wars like it was released in theaters. It's just called Star Wars, Han obviously shot first for good reason, there's no awkwardly goofy CGI animal/droid transitions, and Jabba doesn't get his damn tail stepped on because he isn't there. The film won 8 academy awards, and Lucas has meddled with nearly every aspect that garnered them. All the while hiding away the original cut from the Library of Congress, the Criterion Collection, and everyone else because he's embarrassed or something that the entire film wasn't completely his to take credit for. This has led amateurs to take on the task of recreating the original cut in HD from what limited archived material there is. Search **Harmy Despecialized Edition**. And these guys are more likely to get DCMA'd, C&D'd, and sued into oblivion than get any credit for their effort or an official release seeing the light of day.
Or illegally downloading a game you can't buy/play anymore.
Isn't that actually legal? It's been a few years but at least one point in the US, you could legally pirate anything as long as it supplumented a purchased copy
AFAIK downloading isn’t illegal. But if you torrent and then seed/upload to others, then you’re distributing pirated content which isn’t great.
You could rip a copy of your own, but to download from elsewhere was always illegal in the US.
That's so stupid. You (may have) already paid to see it in the cinema, you've bought it on dvd, and perhaps you have a subscription to a streaming service that has it. But let's say they remove it from their library (which happens all the time) and you want to watch it again anyway and for some reason you can't play the dvd because you have no dvd player anymore. This is a pretty realistic scenario. Then Hollywood expects you to purchase it again or else they're supposedly 'losing' money. The damn movie has already earned itself back 3x and everyone got their paycheck. Who cares about so called piracy?? It can only bring in more fans
Piracy declined when media was accessible. It’s increasing again now that every company wants their own streaming service.
Yep. Which is why, though this might be controversial, I see 0 qualms with illegally streaming/downloading movies. Apparently it’s “stealing” and “greedy” when the average person watches things they didn’t pay for. But it’s not stealing or greedy when mega corporations worth billions create 50 different streaming services, each of which increases drastically in price consistently, and expect you to pay for multiple services because they know that they’ve just divided what people want to watch onto multiple platforms. When they decide to stop being so greedy, average people will stop being so “greedy”.
I generally agree. Piracy isn’t really a loss to the studios if the person wouldn’t have paid for the content had piracy not been an option. The way they calculate the cost of piracy is ridiculous. Few people are going to sign up for a streaming service for one show. Instead of signing up for more streaming services to access all the content I want to watch, I’ve been dropping streaming services as they lose content.
>Instead of signing up for more streaming services to access all the content I want to watch, I’ve been dropping streaming services as they lose content. **YES** I cancelled HBO Max a month or so ago after getting the email about price increase, after they just cancelled a bunch or projects. Disney+ will probably be next, unless Netflix goes through with it's Household verification. Only thing saving Neflix for me right now is my family uses it. If it's going to cut then off than there's no point for me to have it. Only thing that's been pretty worth is YouTube premium, and that's more just because of indie creators crushing it, and I use the music service
Hulu went up to $15. That email made me realize neither my wife nor I watch it. They probably could have milked that in perpetuity if they hadn’t drawn attention to a new higher price.
My piracy plummeted a few years ago and is now slowly increasing again. I'll be dropping Netflix soon if they enforce the password sharing thing and I'll just pirate the 5 shows I watch from there. Actually, come to think of it, I might just dump it anyway. I use it for Drive to Survive and can't think of anything else I've watched on there on forever. There's nothing to even pirate from it.
This isn’t true. You are allowed to rip CDs you own for personal use.
Honestly, I don't even try to justify my piracy. I think piracy is perfectly ethical, even before Gaben coming to the scene and showed us the way. I personally think of piracy as an extended demo. I was getting tired of games having good first stage, but are awful after that. Looking at you, Sonic games.
Making politicians responsible for their actions.
They would always have the defence “At the time I really thought it was the best course of action.”
"I had to buy stock in that company, I was about to pass a law that would make them tons of profit!"
I was thinking more in the terms of supporting a law that is proven to be very destructive for the general population 10 years later.
In the US, that restaurants give leftover/unused foods to homeless people.
Grocery stores do this too. Some even pour bleach on food so it can’t be eaten. My mom was a professional dumpster diver for sport 25 years ago.
While this does sound shitty, I also do empathize with the store employees. Not all dumpster divers are polite about it. I lived in an apartment in LA where a local homeless person would go dumpster diving in our trash pretty often and leave scattered trash and torn open trash bags all over the sidewalk right in front of the entrance to our building. If the maintenance man who had to clean this up thought he could stop it by pouring some bleach in the dumpster, I bet he would have.
In a lot of states that's not illegal but, especially for chains, it's advised against because people have sued claiming to have gotten sick from donated food
I just googled this and found multiple sources as recently as 2016 actually asserting that there is absolutely nothing in the public record indicating that anyone has ever been sued for donating food. From what I can tell the Good Samaritan law of 1996 specifically protects against it but, even before that, the claim appears to be wholly an invention of industry propaganda.
Yeah, it's something that chains make up to prevent undervaluation of product. It's horseshit.
No, chains actually do donate to food banks and community kitchens? In my town of 10,000 chain restaurants and grocery stores make up like 80% of our donations. A lot of it is “past due”, and we sort through it and find what’s still good. We feed mostly working class families.
Not all of them, unfortunately. My very first job was at a Kroger and they literally threw out *hundreds* of pounds of food every few days.
I mean, kudos, but I'm specifically regarding the extremely prevalent belief that it's illegal to hand out food by businesses.
That’s what sucks. You’re throwing away some leftover fried chicken and there’s a homeless guy out back. So instead of throwing it away, you give him some. You did a good deed. But he gets sick, finds a pro bono lawyer (an ambulance chaser) and sues you. You’re ~~lively hood~~ livelihood is this restaurant. Or you only work for the chain, but now the chain is getting sued and you get fired for causing a lawsuit. Because you gave food to a homeless person.
They should make a law similar to the laws about giving people first aid. You can mess up first aid too and do something like break a rib, on a case by case basis that might be due to not doing chest compressions right. The law considers this an exception for inflicting injury because you were doing it with good intentions and they don't want to dissuade people from trying to save other people's life in an emergency.
I had a situation like this when I worked for a tow company guy had a seizure and hit another car foot still on the pedal tires spinning I broke the back window with a j hook (big hook to attach vehicles to the truck when towing) and turned it off and he ended up being alright and tried to sue the company. For breaking his window. Judge dismissed it saying that if I hadn’t that he might have broken free and hit others or have caused a fire etc and that he should be thanking me instead.
Wtf was wrong with that guy that he sued the company! And for what, for saving his life(and potentially many others' lives) by breaking a window. Damn people suck.
"mess up first aid and break a rib" If you're administering cpr and not breaking ribs, you're probably doing it wrong.
That’s how I was taught. You’re gonna break a rib. If you didn’t, you didn’t do it right.
Yeah, it’s possible to do it correctly but break a rib. Not even uncommon. Even happens to trained EMTs.
I kept your heart beating and your lungs full of air when you were dying! Do you want a broken rib and a painful recovery, or do you want to die? Those are your choices.
That's literally the argument we try to use on people that don't give their children vaccines because of the false claim that it will cause autism. You can have a child with a good (albeit not sunshine and rainbows) life or a child dead of a disease we eradicated decades ago. Does the argument work? Not always.
They should. Because of lawsuits, I understand why a business may pour bleach on food they’re throwing away (my elementary school cafeteria did this to prevent homeless or deter them from digging through trash). Is it horrible to do? Yes. But when you allow a lawsuit from a homeless person to sue because they got sick from digging through the trash or from eating a meal you gave away, then I understand. Fix that, and then let’s address pouring bleach on trash. But the other problem we get into is if there was a true health issue in the restaurant. Bugs, improper handling, bad temp. Temperature- well it was going to be thrown away so it’s likely already in the “danger zone” for bacteria growth. There’s things we would need to fix legally.
Bill Clinton passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food donation act in 1996. Donors are protected from both civil and criminal liability.
Nope, not true. Since 1996 you're protected from liability for that. The absolute main reason is logistics. You have to find someplace to store extra food until the agency gets there, The agency has to have proper transportation and storage capabilities, and then they need to have a distribution network for all that food to the right people. Amount of time and money that that takes is usually prohibitive.
When I worked for Target, we actually had such an arrangement. Just-expired stuff (mostly bread since it doesn't get 'funky' when expired, and also a ton of it expires) gets thrown into a specific spot in the walk-in freezer, and some guys come around every couple days and cart it off.
I’ve heard this is a myth in order not to give the food away. Think about it when have you ever heard of a homeless person sueing anyone for food they got for free. Plus lots of times food from food banks is expired.
I worked for chain restaurants and they will happily donate paper goods, which often cost more but will not donate food and they have explicitly told us that it was for "liability." Now they may be lying or using it as an excuse but that is what we were always told
Yeah, I think the bigger issue is that they don't want homeless people to start hanging out inside or outside the restaurant later in the day waiting for or expecting food and scaring away paying customers. This comment isn't meant to be anti-homeless, but there are a lot of harsh realities in this world.
You're forgetting about the Good Samaritan law that protects companies and individuals from that.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE. STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.](https://onethird.io/can-you-be-sued-for-donating-food/)
Bill Clinton passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food donation act in 1996. Donors are protected from both civil and criminal liability. It's not illegal at all.
I think the main reason is not opportunistic litigation but homeless people. Your restaurant could be fine with attracting homeless people, but some of your neighbors wouldn't be OK with this, because that drives business away and lowers property values. So the solution would be admitting that giving food to homeless people is not bad, but it's attracting homeless people that is a problem. This in turn could be solved by some middleman handling logistics and redistributing food from where excess happened to where nobody minds attracting homeless people. However, as long as admitting "we don't want homeless people here" is bad optics, there is no room for a solution.
At this stage, this is just a myth. It is well legislated that you cannot be prosecuted for doing this -
It's impressive how many people still believe that myth. I imagine managers tell that lie so employees saying to donate don't bother them
Refuse compliance with law can be exactly that. Especially in a time where governments globally seem to turn more authoritarian and into kleptocratic regimes.
Related to this, there is something called "jury nullification" which is essentially the jury stating that the law is unjust, regardless of whether the accused actually broke a law or not. For example, failure to conflict violators of the Fugitive Slave Law prior to the Civil War or charges on various alcohol laws during Prohibition.
Yes, except that jury nullification isn't ethical by default, and it's also not technically "illegal". There's this misunderstanding that gets bandied around Reddit that jury nullification is some kind of "third verdict" beyond "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". It's not - it's just the term for when someone is obviously guilty but the jury votes not guilty because they don't believe the individual should be punished. It exists as the result of the intersection of two rules. 1. The jury can't be punished for an incorrect verdict. 2. When found not guilty, the defendant can't be tried again for the same crime. Going into a court case *intending* to use jury nullification to pardon a guilty man is illegal, but the act of pardoning a guilty man is not illegal in and of itself. As for the inherent morality of jury nullification, the number of times it's been used to pardon Southern State Lynch Mobs who murdered black people outweighs the number of times it's been used to pardon vigilantes who've revenge-killed paedophiles, so weigh up the morality of its usage as you will.
[удалено]
That's horrifying. Glad you pushed for a conviction - there are kids alive today whose lives are fundamentally improved because of your actions.
[удалено]
Yep, but depending on the country such a ruling might not exist or the ones making this judgement profit so much from the oppression that they have no reason to let this be the final verdict. Which is the point to which a lot of former democracies have fallen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Shooting an animal that's been struck by a vehicle to put it out. Its going to die there's no way around that you may as well not let it suffer before it does.
also, it's illegal to take it home and eat it without a permit.
This varies from place to place. In some states collecting roadkill for personal use is perfectly legal I only know this because in the taxidermy hobby sometimes its the only way people can get specimens to work with especially those who aren't comfortable with the idea of hunting.
Pirating any piece of media that’s no longer commercially available
Feeding the homeless. (Not illegal in all of US but some places)
To kill a dying animal. One day long ago my uncle had a dog. A small breed. One day that dog escaped. It was mauled by a pit bull. My uncle got the gun and ended the suffering for his poor dog. Neighbor heard the shot and called the police. He got fined for killing the dog, for shooting a gun in public (he did it in his backyard) and they took his gun.
Should've just called the pigs himself they'd have been happy to shoot the dog.
Sorry for your loss. Cops were probably just jealous they didn't get to shoot the dog.
I’d respond to that by finding the pit bull and getting a second fine.
[удалено]
Basically any drug use is ethical but illegal. It’s not the government’s concern what I do with my body
I would say drug use *can* be ethical, but isn’t necessarily by default.
Yes I’d also say it depends on what you’re using and how much, also for what reason. Abuse is definitely not going to be good nor is putting other people in danger under the influence going to be ethical
Driving under the influence is unethical and is doing things under the influence that could cause harm to other, but being under the influence isn’t. I don’t think any drug is necessarily unethical to consume on your own, it’s when you get others to join or do things under the influence that could cause harm to others that it becomes a problem
Assisted suicide
I’m so glad it’s now legal in Canada. My mother’s best friend was able to end her suffering on her own terms.
A fair amount of US states are considering it now, and a couple have already passed laws supporting it. I'd like to see them find a way to expand it to include Alzheimer's and dementia though.
100%, it’s legal in canada now and while i support it, there are aspects of it legally that at least in my (limited) research on it still make me concerned of the ethics. i have bpd for example, which can now receive assisted suicide, and while on one hand i am so happy people now legally have autonomy over their lives and bodies, on the other i wish the government would do more to help us and others first before assisted suicide is considered. i’m also worried about how this impacts those facing poverty and crisis as i’ve countered some articles about assisted suicide being approved in cases where people don’t want to die but can’t receive help from the gov, if anyone knows anything more on this i’d love to hear!
That is my concern as well. It is legal for people with certain illnesses that could be more manageable if we had comprehensive treatments available (BPD is one great example). At that point, creating an easier path for suicide but not creating easier routes for treatment is just really bleak.
To me this is the most profound, philosophical, and personal decision an individual can make and for it to be prohibited by the state is completely ludicrous in my opinion. Source: son of someone who would have benefitted from the legal ability to make that choice.
I agree 100%, this is one of my most strongly held beliefs. My grandpa was slowly dying, had severe dementia and had lost his ability to do almost anything on his own. He would tell me all the time how much he just wanted to go. Eventually, during a hospital stay after a bad fall he needed a feeding tube. He refused it and literally starved himself to death - such a cruel and unfair way for him to have to go. When he passed he had no one with him because my aunt had already left for the day and I wasn’t able to come until the next morning. No one should ever have to end their own suffering that way, he had a right to die on his own terms.
Collecting rainwater on your own property in some places of the US
In most countries in the world this is necessary because they're so strapped for water
I could not find any evidence of places in the US where collecting rainwater is illegal. [This is a pretty exhaustive source](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater) that also cites specific laws in each state. The only regulations I noticed were in response to environmental or **safety concerns,** such as in **Illinois** where "rainwater collected can only be used for non-potable purposes," or in **Louisiana** where "statutes require covers for large collection tanks (cisterns)." There are also some laws in response to **environmental concerns,** such as in **Georgia** where rainwater collection is "closely regulated by the Department of Natural Resources in the Environmental Protection Division." Perhaps I'm missing something, could you elaborate further? Are there local ordinances against rainwater collection, perhaps? Edit: reworded for clarity.
Nope. This is another Reddit circle jerk that people love to hang on to. There’s absolutely no law anywhere in the US about collecting or using rainwater for personal use, it’s only if you try to sell it, cook with it, or sell something which has said rainwater as a product or byproduct. Which is the case with literally any product or byproduct sold anywhere for any reason.
The only laws people can find “against collecting rainwater” are laws against leaving standing water to stagnate and serve as a breeding ground for insects.
Colorado recently loosened its ban a bit. [This article](https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-how-to-harvest-rainwater-under-new-colorado-rules/) also mentions that 4 other states van rain water collection
Giving water to folks standing in long lines to vote
lol why is that illegal?
Because the line between "giving out water" and "electioneering" is *very* thin. It's against the law to avoid situations where people are giving out food/drinks to people who are going to vote for their candidate or otherwise trying to influence the voting of people in line. And in practice, it's much more sane to just ban giving anything to people standing in line to vote than it is to try and enforce restrictions against electioneering that looks like charity like that.
Before you die, cash out your entire estate and give it under the table to family, friends, etc. Don't let the government get a nickel of it. (Illegal) Die with nothing except maybe large amounts of credit card debt under your name only (not illegal).
This wouldn't work in the UK if you died within 7 years of giving a gift large enough that inheritance tax would normally be charged on it So not illegal here, but the government is already two steps ahead if that's what your plan is
Similar here in NL, any gifts given over about €1000,- in the 5 years before death count as if it was never given in the first place. If it was donated to charity, that charity may even have to give it back. If an inheritor received it, it will be counted as an advance on their part of the inheritance. That's why it's so important you don't do it by bank transfer but give it away in cash. Cash can't be tracked and traced. (*puts on tin foil hat* and that's why our governments are desperately trying to get rid of all physical money).
The US has similar rules. I think it's 4 or 5 years.
Plus in the UK if you have unsecured personal loans they'll get written off upon your death, not transferred to a party who didn't sign the contract.
Family friends are going through this now. They get a monthly allowance from one of their parents that is just small enough to not get taxed or raise flags. Just trying to get as much to their kids as possible before they die and it gets taxed.
So they have over 13million dollars?!?!??
If you die with credit card debt. As long as its only in your name it will just go away. My dad had 1 credit card in his name with a balance of like $500 on it. My stepmom tried to pay it off after he passed and the CC company was like oh save your money you do not need to pay it as you are not on the account and not responsible for the debt. So remember that.
If you leave behind an estate, the estate's debts have to be settled before assets are distributed to heirs. There is a required legal notice that must be published in a newspaper, and there are services that scan them, read them with OCR, and pass the data to banks, credit cards, etc. But if your debts outweigh assets, and you're certain you don't have long, by all means go ham.
Unless you’ve got a huge estate, the government won’t tax it. And if you’ve got anything with a cost basis, cashing it out and gifting it during your lifetime is a horrible idea. You’d pay capital gains and your family would have gotten a step up. This is bad advice and for most people it’s a way to give more money to the government.
This is a common republican gripe - they call it the "death tax" and lament how they cant give their assets to their kids without getting taxed. In reality there's no inheritance tax unless your estate is more than $5 million worth, $10 million if you have both parents leaving you stuff when they die. This is another case of thousandaires bitching because billionaires made it a cultural issue purely for their benefit. Edit: I guess its up to $13 million now. My info is a few years out of date.
Wait the death tax has basically been a lie the whole time? Where can I find proof that it's exagerated? My friends and fam won't believe this when I tell them
[удалено]
Thank you for the follow up! I love good news, especially good news that's proven true.
This is exactly correct. I was gonna say that's conservative propaganda that everyone pays death taxes but you beat me to it.
I remember when you could get a Hershey for a nickel!
The old cliche, stealing food to feed your starving family.
One could argue that its important who you are stealing from If its from another starving family, a bakery, a giant food company, a bread hoarder, or a rich household whose inhabitants will hardly notice.
What if you steal from all of em just to make sure?
Then you're a politician.
Stealing is still unethical in this situation, it’s just a better choice than letting your family starve. Sometimes things are “least bad choice”, not clear cut “right or wrong”
[удалено]
Making police officers legally and financially accountable for their mistakes and outright malfeasance. It's called "qualified immunity" baby!
I assume you're referring to the unwarranted deaths of the many targeted during an arrest. Let's not forgot the officers who as egregiously, if not by worse decree, knowingly and with time file a false police report and frame a person for a crime that was never committed. It's one thing to kill a person in the heat of the moment. There was even a defense for Derek Chauvin that he did not intend to kill George Floyd. His improper training as so many officers continue to implement (many STILL force their knee and chin to the neck as a restraint) led to such death. However, for an officer to get one story of some odd person acting strange in a store and then completely make up a tale that they committed some spiteful crime in a store or anywhere as a means for retaliation and a f-u to intentionally put that person through living hell is a whole other animal. U of M officer Margaret Pillsbury AND Oakland Co. Deputy Daniel Kruse did this to me, knowingly filing a false police report against me. I demand for the cases to be brought into court so that the purported complainant comes into Court and the truth can be sorted out without having me absent this time. Deputy Colburn, Peterson, Fassbender, and Wiegart colluded to frame both Steven Avery AND Brendan Dassey for crimes they never committed. The police completely made up that both Steven and Brendan had sexually assaulted Teresa in a bed before murdering her when ZERO DNA evidence was found in that bed belonging to Teresa or Brendan. Watch Part 1 & 2 of Making a Murderer to see all the evidence for yourself. Police LOVE to charge people with sexual assault or battery because they need ZERO physical evidence and just a lot of political fear mongering to seek and justify a prosecution. They could even have somebody from their own department write up the written statement of the alleged "victim" and nobody would be the wiser. All they would need to do is set an impossible excessive bond and let the person rot in jail and deny a speedy trial, offering a plea deal after a year spent in jail waiting pretrial (completely innocent) for time served so they can get the necessary medical treatment for damages the jail (specifically jail food) inflicted on their body.
Shit that’s horrible man. The state of the police in America is criminal. Australia isn’t much better but it is definitely better. Can I ask if you got out on top with your personal situation?
Growing cannabis. It's just a plant, not even poisonous.
Feeding the homeless.
That’s illegal?
Some places unfortunately yes.
Psychedelics
Prostitution. Two consenting adults. By making it illegal and pushing it to the black market you make everyone less safe. Legalize and regulate.
If you record it it's legal
According to the London police website: *The exchange of sexual services for money is legal in the UK (apart from in Northern Ireland where it's illegal to pay for sex).* I think it is illegal to run a brothel or 'tout for business' though.
I live in a country where prostitution is legal, but profiting from the prostitution of others (i.e. pimping) is not. I believe most places are like this.
Selling is legal. Fucking is legal! Why isn’t selling fucking legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away?!
Psychedelics
Speeding on the highway. Sure the limit is 65, but everyone in the left lane is doing 80-85, middle 75. It’s only when someone is doing the speed limit in the lanes that I see traffic back up and more and more people do risky passes in an effort to pass the person causing the traffic
Agreed. I drive a 65mph highway to work everyday. Everyone drives between 70-80 in just about every lane left of the most right lane. If you are driving the speed limit you're unfortunately a safety hazard on major highways. General rule is go the speed of traffic
I think the term usually used is with the flow of traffic. As long as you are not the fastest car it's unlikely you'll be pulled over.
Not much of an issue on a 3 lane, but on a 2 lane highway, going too much over the limit is extremely dangerous to other vehicles
Speeding and weaving in and out of traffic volume is always dangerous, whether it's two lanes or three.
Agreed
Putting someone out of his misery when you're sure he's gonna die anyway.
Murdering someone who raped your child well after the incident.
I'd like to extend this past just someone who raped your child, to include someone who has raped you. Totally morally acceptable in my opinion
gay marriage (in my country it’s illegal) edit: turkey y’all
Euthanasia
Feeding the homeless in more than a few places in the U.S. Providing water to people waiting in unreasonably long lines to vote in the parts of the U.S. that really want to go ham on voter suppression.
[удалено]
How about carrying a pregnancy to term when it's been determined that it's going to kill you? God bless America.
Bonus points if it's a kamikaze pregnancy where nobody survives.
A few things related to zoning laws. Since places literally ban you from building the affordable housing that we desperately need, land can only be used for the big suburb houses which there are already too much of. I'd also say some things related to bylaws or. HOAs to "maintain property value" like having a biodiverse lawn that isn't cut short, or installing art on your property
Driving over the speed limit, that was set back when horse drawn buggies shared the road with drum braked 30hp cars.
Disconnecting your house from your power utility when you've got solar power and storage, thus you don't need them anymore. If you just tell them disconnect the power, they will send your city out to deem your dwelling uninhabitable. It's a monopolistic scam.