Wilkins Vs Gaddy Case Study

The case of Tammy Lou Fontenot v. Taser International, Inc. was about a wrongful death case named Darryl Tuner, a 17-year-old male employed by a grocery store. Darryl was fired for “insubordination” and refused to leave the grocery store. Police were called, and eventually used a Taser in order to take him into custody. Turner died as a result of the Taser being delivered to Turner’s body. Tammy Lou Fontenot filed suit against the City of Charlotte and Taser International seeking money damages for the alleged wrongful death of Darryl Turner.

Statement of Issue: The issue in the case Uniforms United vs. Button Barn is the false imprisonment committed by Marvin Merchant, from Button Barn, against Dan Driver, from Uniforms United. According to court law, false imprisonment is defined as deliberate unlawful detaining of someone without their consent. Although shopkeeper’s have the privilege to detain person’s they suspect of stealing from them, this lawful privilege only lasts for a reasonable amount of time. Merchant, however, detained Driver for an unreasonable amount of time, resulting in an $8,000 loss for Uniforms United.

P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that he was giving his friend a cane when MOS arrested him. P alleges that he did not have any drugs instead his friend (non-party) had Xanax pills. MOS state that UC observed P in hand to hand drug transaction. P was unable to make bail and remained incarcerated for 6 days.

In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court had to determine if violations of the eight amendments had occurred under the “punitive intent standard” which distinguishes between incarceration and detainment. The court also had to determine if any violations of the eighth amendment had occurred which resulted in cruel and unusual punishment being inflicted upon the inmates who were primarily housed as pretrial detainees. The case alleged that within a new constructed federal jail in New York City

608 F. 3D 614 (9th Cir. No. 08-55662, files 6/18/10, withdrawn and amended, 11/30/10) in a 42 U.S.C section 1983 action based on defendants-officer 's use of a taser on plaintiff at a traffic stop, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where, viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant 's use of the taser was unconstitutionally excessive force and a violation of plaintiff 's clearly established rights.  Police must have reasonable grounds to use a taser.  Officer Brian McPherson used excessive force when on July 24, 2005, he deployed his X26 taser in dart mode to apprehend Carl Bryan for a seatbelt infraction, where Bryan was obviously and noticeably unarmed (he was wearing

In the present year of 2016 there has already been 7 school shootings around America. The rhetorical analysis of the court document “Kinkel vs The State of Oregon”. The document was written to explain the arguments of both sides of the court and to justify the decision made by the court and judge Haselton through facts and rhetorical accounts of events that transpired of Mr. Kinkel and his actions of the school shooting. Judge Haselton clearly uses Ethos, Logos, and Pathos within the analysis which is used to his advantage. Judge Haselton was writing to many audiences, the most important and crucial are the defendants and the victim’s family members present.

The case was then heard before the United States Supreme Court. Four Supreme Court justices, Justice White, Justice Stewart, Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens all concluded the sentence of death for the crime of rape is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment is is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment (Coker v Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 1977). There was some variation however, between the other Justice’s sitting in on the ruling.

NEGLIGENCE, CASES,SOLUTION CASE STUDY Brickhill v Cooke [1984] 3 NSWLR 396 Facts • The prospective purchasers of a property engaged an engineer to inspect the property and prepare a written report. • The engineer concluded that the property was structurally sound.

Officers who are left with lack of sleep, lack of departure from the job, lack of time off, and lacking personal time are at greater risk of accidents, injury, and liability due to the stressors of the job and interaction with the socially unstable, mental handicapped, aggressive, and assaultive inmates. The failure of the Department of Corrections to abide by or even attempt to align “suggested” and determined manning to prevail makes each facility hazardous to inmates and staff alike. With this said, it stands to reason that when the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections allows a known hazard to exist and persist, while a risk assessment has been accomplished and given to the State of Alaska in the form of a “CGL Analysis”, the state had been placed on notice (CGL, 2016). To combat this continued hazard, it is proposed that every event that an Officer is “Held Over”, “Ordered into Mandatory Overtime”, “Refused a Requested Leave”, or “Ordered to work on a shift that is Undermanned according to the CGL Analysis”, the Premium Pay that will include “Hazard Pay” will be calculated for every hour worked in that

The Stanford Prison Study Analysis One of the most well known classic psychology experiments of all time is the Stanford Prison Study. The study was chiefly conducted by Philip Zimbardo. The study is very well known because do to the outcome of the behaviors of people, the experiment was never able to be completed. The experiment began on a early August morning when a mass number of people were arrested for Armed Robbery and Burglary in Palo Alto, California (Zimbardo, 2015).

You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.

In Jeff Jacoby’s “Bring Back Flogging,” he compares the punishments for crimes in the 17th Century to the punishments for crimes in the present. Jacoby suggests in his essay that “the Puritans were more enlightened than we think, at least on the subject of punishment. Their sanctions were humiliating and painful, but quick and cheap.” Jacoby makes a good argument to bring back an old punishment policy. He points out that “a humiliating and painful paddling can be applied to the rear end of a crook for a lot less than $30,000 (per year).”

The case ended in the Supreme Court with the case being reversed. The court’s concern was due process of the

This was tried in front of a jury of the defendant’s peers whom were selected from the defendant’s community. The major issue with this case is if a person is allowed to exercise potentially deadly actions to protect their property when they are not in danger. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the lower courts decision. This was in agreement with the similar cases of Hooker v. Miller, Allison v. Fiscus, and United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt.

Contributory carelessness is careless behavior by the harmed party that is a contributing reason for her wounds, and that falls underneath the legitimate standard for shielding oneself from an outlandish danger of mischief. At basic law, the guard of contributory carelessness was an outright safeguard and served as a complete bar to recuperation. Most wards today have embraced the tenet of relative carelessness, whereby the offended party 's measure grant is decreased by the degree to which offended party 's behavior added to the damage. Contributory carelessness is a bar to recuperation just when it is a proximate reason for the damage. On the off chance that the harm is not the fundamental or customary or likely aftereffect of contributory carelessness, however is because of some other improbable occasion which couldn 't sensibly have been