Is it illegal to ride a drunk horse? Tedd owns a riding horse. One day, Tedd notices that his horse has somehow gotten itself drunk. Tedd has someplace where he needs to be, so he saddles up his drunken horse and rides to his destination. Has a crime been committed? Answers are welcome from any jurisdiction where alcohol is legal, but I'm especially interested in how the law stands in minnesota. (Google is unhelpful here, as searches for &quot;is it illegal to ride a drunk horse&quot; or similar make it think I'm trying to ask it whether riding a horse is illegal if the rider is drunk, when what I'm actually interested in is the situation if the horse is drunk.)
germany In Germany, the described situation could lead to a fine up to € 2000. As the rider of a horse, you are subject to the existing traffic rules and regulations for all vehicle traffic (§28(2) StVO). As the 'driver' of the vehicle, it is your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is safe to drive (§23(1) StVO). The administrative offense for the rider of a horse is defined in §49(2) StVO and the possible fine for this offense in §24(3)(5) StVG. Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung (StVO) 2013 Road Traffic Regulations no English version of law text § 23 - Sonstige Pflichten von Fahrzeugführenden (1)... Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, hat zudem dafür zu sorgen, dass das Fahrzeug, der Zug, das Gespann sowie die Ladung und die Besetzung vorschriftsmäßig sind und dass die Verkehrssicherheit des Fahrzeugs durch die Ladung oder die Besetzung nicht leidet. ... § 23 - Other obligations of vehicle drivers (1)... Anyone who drives a vehicle must also ensure that the vehicle, the train, the combination, the load and the occupants are in accordance with the regulations and that the road safety of the vehicle is not impaired by the load or the occupants. ... § 28 - Tiere (2) Wer reitet, Pferde oder Vieh führt oder Vieh treibt, unterliegt sinngemäß den für den gesamten Fahrverkehr einheitlich bestehenden Verkehrsregeln und Anordnungen. ... § 28 - Animals ... (2) Anyone who rides horses, leads horses or cattle or drives cattle is subject to the existing traffic rules and regulations for all vehicle traffic. ... § 49 - Ordnungswidrigkeiten (2) Ordnungswidrig im Sinne des § 24 Absatz 1 des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes handelt auch, wer vorsätzlich oder fahrlässig § 24(3)(5) StVG: Geldstrafe bis zu € 2000 ... 4. Als Reiter, Führer von Pferden, Treiber oder Führer von Vieh entgegen § 28 Absatz 2 einer für den gesamten Fahrverkehr einheitlich bestehenden Verkehrsregel oder Anordnung zuwiderhandelt, ... § 49 - Administrative offenses ... (2) Anyone who acts intentionally or negligently is also an administrative offense within the meaning of Section 24 (1) of the Road Traffic Act [§ 24(3)(5) StVG: Fine up to € 2000] ... 4. As a rider, handler of horses, drivers or handlers of cattle, contrary to § 28 paragraph 2, violates a traffic rule or order that applies uniformly to all traffic, ... What is a 'vehicle' (Fahrzeug)? Everything that is not definded in §24 StVO: (1) Schiebe- und Greifreifenrollstühle, Rodelschlitten, Kinderwagen, Roller, Kinderfahrräder, Inline-Skates, Rollschuhe und ähnliche nicht motorbetriebene Fortbewegungsmittel sind nicht Fahrzeuge im Sinne der Verordnung. Für den Verkehr mit diesen Fortbewegungsmitteln gelten die Vorschriften für den Fußgängerverkehr entsprechend. (2) Mit Krankenfahrstühlen oder mit anderen als in Absatz 1 genannten Rollstühlen darf dort, wo Fußgängerverkehr zulässig ist, gefahren werden, jedoch nur mit Schrittgeschwindigkeit. (1) sliding and push rim wheelchairs, toboggans, strollers, scooters, children's bikes, inline skates, roller skates and similar non-motorized means of transportation are not vehicles for the purposes of the regulation. For the marketing of these means of transport regulations for pedestrian traffic apply accordingly. (2) With wheelchairs or with other as mentioned in paragraph 1 wheelchairs may be driven where pedestrian traffic is allowed, but only at walking speed. What is a 'Motor vehicle' (Kraftfahrzeug)? §1 - Zulassung - Straßenverkehrsgesetz (StVG) ... (2) Als Kraftfahrzeuge im Sinne dieses Gesetzes gelten Landfahrzeuge, die durch Maschinenkraft bewegt werden, ohne an Bahngleise gebunden zu sein. (2) Motor vehicles within the meaning of this Act are land vehicles that are moved by machine power without being tied to railway tracks.
No. I'm going to assume we're talking about the US, where being convicted of a crime requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Thus, our hypothetical friend has NOT committed murder. Nor has he committed manslaughter (as this too requires that somebody die) or attempted murder or manslaughter (as that requires an intent that the person should die). If it could be proven that the person our hypothetical scumbag ran over died as a result of being run over, our hypothetical scumbag would likely have committed negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter; however, as these imply a lack of intent, they lack "attempted" versions (see People v. Hernandez, http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/1980/76-813.html though state laws differ and some may be weird). In short, he has not committed any flavor of murder or manslaughter. So, what other enterprising charge or legal proceeding might we be able to level against him? I'm sure one exists. I'll edit it in once I find it. Civil suit for wrongful death Normally, our hypothetical scumbag would find himself on the receiving end of a wrongful death lawsuit. This would require that he (1) owed the dead man a duty of care (which he clearly did; all motorists are obliged to exhibit reasonable care in operating their motor vehicles) and that he (2) breached that duty (which he presumably did), but also that (3) this failure caused the death of the guy he ran over (which you have stipulated that we cannot "even guess," which precludes a "preponderance of the evidence" (the standard for civil matters)) and that (4) that person's death has caused actual, quantifiable damages to the plaintiff (which it can't as "nobody knows him"). Reckless driving charge In most states, our hypothetical scumbag's behavior meets the threshold for reckless driving. For example, in VA law: [In reckless driving cases, e]ither the driver is believed to have driven recklessly in a manner that threatened people or property, to have driven 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the speed limit, or to have exceeded 80 miles per hour, no matter the speed limit. http://manassascriminalattorney.com/2015/10/can-reckless-driving-in-virginia-be-a-felony-charge/ In some states, this may be felony reckless driving; in others, it may be a mere misdemeanor. Misc links https://www.virginia-criminallawyer.com/homicide-laws-virginia-code.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/proving-wrongful-death-civil-case.html A forum discussion that (thank heaven) cited its sources: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155412
Is he committing a crime in Albania? It would help if you posted the statutes that regulate or prohibit betting, since the terms thereof would shed light on the legal definition (aka prima facie elements) of betting and/or the legislative intent behind those statutes. Absent that information, your description reflects that most certainly the Albanian is committing a crime. The Albanian's conduct matches --at least-- the ordinary meaning of betting: he is not disbursing (or promising to disburse) money merely for fun or leisure, but for the prospect of possibly profiting from an uncertain event of which he officially has no control. Doing it through a third party located in another country changes nothing in this regard. Am I committing a crime in Italy? The Italian might be considered an accessory of that conduct being classified as criminal in Albania. Thus, facilitating activity that is prohibited in Albania could turn out to be problematic even for the Italian. Furthermore, even if betting is legal in Italy, the Italian might be in trouble under the laws of Italy if taking money (without the requisite license) from someone else to make bets constitutes unauthorized business of gambling. The condition that the Italian would retain a portion of any profits makes the business (or for-profit) element quite evident.
Is receiving intimate stimulation while driving illegal? Under Michigan law, it seems illegal. What you describe is one particular case of a general family of scenarios where recklessness or negligence are elements of a driver-related offense. Thus, it would be inefficient and redundant to enact a statute to prohibit that specific hypothetical situation. MCL 257.626(2) sanctions the operation of a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, and as you mention It's pretty obvious to me why this is a dangerous practice MCL 257.626b sanctions the operation of a vehicle in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness. A prosecutor might try to file charges also on the basis of MCL 750.335, which sanctions "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior".
I think this relates to individual stores interpretation of California's "ABC Laws": § 25658. Sale to and consumption by person under 21 years of age; Use by peace officers to apprehend sellers of alcoholic beverages to minors (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Except as provided in Section 25667 or 25668, any person under 21 years of age who purchases any alcoholic beverage, or any person under 21 years of age who consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Any person who violates subdivision (a) by purchasing any alcoholic beverage for, or furnishing, giving, or giving away any alcoholic beverage to, a person under 21 years of age, and the person under 21 years of age thereafter consumes the alcohol and thereby proximately causes great bodily injury or death to himself, herself, or any other person, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The last part is the part that scares business owners. Some interpret it as "if they furnish alcohol to you (a person over 21) and have reasonable suspicion that the purchase will be given to the minor, the person furnishing the alcohol is guilty of a misdemeanor". This is absolutely true in the case of bar owners/bartenders. If they sell somebody a drink, even if that person is over 21, and that drink is then given to a minor, they can be (probably not successfully) held responsible in some form for any injury that person sustains or commits as a result of alcohol consumption. Some stores take this much more seriously (because a violation can mean the loss/suspension of the liquor license) than others, and it is at the stores discretion to deny the sale based on any suspicion, whether based in reality or not.
According to German law (Jugendschutzgesetz), §9: Minors 14 years of age and older may drink undistilled alcoholic beverages, such as wine and beer, when accompanied by a Custodial Person, Minors 16 years of age and older may drink undistilled alcoholic beverages, such as wine and beer, without accompaniment, and Adults (18 and older) may drink distilled spirits without restriction as well. Note that the act of drinking itself is not illegal for a minor. It is only the offering or facilitating of alcohol that is illegal (and punishable).
CRS 18-3-402 states that (1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: (a) The actor causes submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will which is to say, sex must be consensual. The essence of a legal order for specific performance is that the party's "consent" is irrelevant. This is not limited to Colorado, and would hold in any jurisdiction where prostitution is legal. A court would not order specific performance in this case, neither in Colorado nor Nevada. Nor would the court order specific performance in case the contract allowed one party to beat the other to a pulp. The contract itself is illegal in Colorado, but not in Nevada (certain counties excluded). In that case, the other party is out $5 in Colorado. In Nevada, they would be entitled to a refund (amount to be determined, depending on the facts of the meat pie).
Since you asked two questions: No and No Does a company’s T&amp;C or their house rules supersede law No and is asking private health status (including the request to wear a mask) an offence? No A company cannot require you to do things that are against the law but they can require you to do things that go further than the legal minimum. The UK and Spanish governments do not require you to wear a mask but they do not prohibit private organisations (like airlines) for making it a requirement to access their facilities. The law requires that they make reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. But you don’t have a disability, you just can’t sleep with a mask on. If you had a disability you would have no trouble in getting a letter from your doctor to that effect. The contract requires them to take you from the UK to Spain: they don’t have to enable you to sleep. If you read the T&amp;C, you will find that they can refuse to carry you if, in their reasonable opinion, you pose a hazard to the aircraft or the people aboard it.