i have a job interview today and i was wondering whether or whether not they drug test you at ralphs the supermarket.
does any1 kno?
Answer:
Yes. Most reputable employers require drug screening of employees for insurance and legal reasons.
Yes they do. State and Federal laws require drug test for new hires into all companies with over a certain number of workers. Are you worried?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Does raising money for charity count as non-commercial under "creative commons" license?
I've been writing a blog for a while that combines images from Flickr which are licensed under creative commons (non-commercial) with select quotes. After several requests, I'm now considering turning it into a book of sorts, via Lulu.com.
Because of the license terms and spirit of what I'm doing, I'm not looking to make any money from this personally. However, it seems it could be a good opportunity to help a charity.
Would it be allowable under the terms of the creative commons license for me to charge say $1-2 extra on top of the cost from Lulu for printing/shipping, with the full extra amount going to a nominated charity?
Answer:
The terms of any Creative Common license are set forth in the license, and each has specific things that are allowed and forbidden.
Generally, you are not allowed to charge extra above printing/handling/shipping costs -- but you can solicit donations to charity as part of the transaction. Thus, you can sell the book for $10, but if the buyer wants to pay $12 you'll donate the extra to charity. That's allowed under most Creative Commons licenses.
But also check your local state/country regulations for collecting money for charities.
But be prepared to prove that the full extra amount going to a nominated charity. Keep careful and detailed records. You can be audited. In the US file with the IRS the first year documenting this.
It might work if you form a non-profit organization, register it with the state's Attorney General's office of charity supervision, and receive IRS recognition of its charitable status, say, 501(c)(3).
Otherwise, you are at risk that some state or federal law will be interpreted as meaning your actions are for your own personal opportunity, and not charitable, as you claim, and you will be personally responsible for paying everyone back.
Because of the license terms and spirit of what I'm doing, I'm not looking to make any money from this personally. However, it seems it could be a good opportunity to help a charity.
Would it be allowable under the terms of the creative commons license for me to charge say $1-2 extra on top of the cost from Lulu for printing/shipping, with the full extra amount going to a nominated charity?
Answer:
The terms of any Creative Common license are set forth in the license, and each has specific things that are allowed and forbidden.
Generally, you are not allowed to charge extra above printing/handling/shipping costs -- but you can solicit donations to charity as part of the transaction. Thus, you can sell the book for $10, but if the buyer wants to pay $12 you'll donate the extra to charity. That's allowed under most Creative Commons licenses.
But also check your local state/country regulations for collecting money for charities.
But be prepared to prove that the full extra amount going to a nominated charity. Keep careful and detailed records. You can be audited. In the US file with the IRS the first year documenting this.
It might work if you form a non-profit organization, register it with the state's Attorney General's office of charity supervision, and receive IRS recognition of its charitable status, say, 501(c)(3).
Otherwise, you are at risk that some state or federal law will be interpreted as meaning your actions are for your own personal opportunity, and not charitable, as you claim, and you will be personally responsible for paying everyone back.
Does puring tea over someones head constitute as "assulting" them?
I have a court date coming up for a fight I got in at the mall. Some girl had been prank calling my boyfriends phone and sending messages via myspace talking "smack". I saw her at the mall and confronted her on it. She lied and mouthed off so I took the lid off my iced tea and poured it over her head. Immediatley she attacked me. Next thing I knew, I was in a choke hold by some lady and the iced tea covered girl was getting up off the floor and dashing for security demanding that charges be pressed. So now, we're days away from going to court and people are telling me that I should have counter pressed charges cause technically she layed hands on me first. I've never dealt with this kind of stuff and I have no idea what to think.
Answer:
You should "lawyer up"
find a good criminal atty. Technically you began the assault by pouring the tea over her head, until then it was just words, she could have been charged with harassment first.
Yes - Any unwanted touching can be classified as an assault.
yep
lol. Yes it does constitute assualt. But also it constitutes Battery charges. Assualt is the threat to bodily harm (like waving a fist or gun to someone) and battery is the harm itself (like punching or shooting that person).
Yes.Next time let your boyfriend deal with it.
attempted murder
Nowadays you can have charges pressed just by looking at someone wrong... I would maintain that the spill was an accident and you were attacked first...
but that's just me ;)
The physical contact doesn't have to be your body to her body. If you intentionally cause something unwelcome to come into physical contact with her, that's enough. Would you be asking this question if you had thrown a rock at her? Of course not. Just because the iced tea wasn't the most dangerous object doesn't change the fact that you initiated the physical confrontation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a job where you need to have some knowledge of the law. In Canada, where I live, any kind of unwanted physical contact could be considered an assault. Pouring iced tea on someone counts as an assault. If the other girl laid hands on you, in Canada at least, she could also be open to a charge of assault. Since both Canadian and American law have roots in English common law (I'm assuming you're American), the laws regarding assault should be pretty similar.
At this point, the smart thing for you to do is to get the best lawyer you can afford and try and have the charges reduced or dropped. The prosecution might see the situation as a couple of teen-aged girls (I'm assuming you're in your teens; almost everyone on FreeLawAnswer.coms seems to be) acting like idiots and decide to spend their time on better things. Get a lawyer, however. You don't want to mess around with the justice system or get a criminal record. America is particularly punitive when it comes to criminal records.
Yes it is considered assault. To what extent, depends on the judge.
If you are lucky, the judge will think the retaliation was an over reaction from the girl.
Being shoved is being assaulted, but does not give someone the right to shoot them in self defense (or at least would be very difficult to prove it was justified).
If you are lucky, you can possibly consider paying 'restitution' to the girl. Maybe the cost of dry cleaning her clothes, and/or getting her hair done, in exchange for charges dropped.
Obviously talk to a lawyer, even a public defender.
Most likely you'll be charged with battery. Battery is a slightly less offense than assault. If you punch someone that's assault as it can be said you intend to hurt them, pouring ice tea on someone is more like an insult.
You'll probably get a fine and probation, she only mouthed off technically you attacked her.
Assault %26 Battery might be a bit of an extreme verdict, but what you did is SOMETHING. And I'd say you could get hit with that. A lawyer will get it reduced to whatever they can for you.
You realize that it IS something, right? That it's not perfectly OK to be throwing liquids on people--that at the VERY minimum, you're responsible for damage to clothes, etc?
I find it interesting (and a bit sad) how often people allow words to bother them so much...and lead to things like this, or worse. What ever happened to the old saying about "sticks %26 stones?"
...names will never hurt you, but a fine or jail time might.
Please do yourself a favor and get a lawyer.
She didn't attack you, you attacked her by pouring the tea-- changing it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one. Better take the best plea deal thrown your way and hope for the best.
Amercians gained their freedom over a row involving tea - I think it's probably written somewhere in the constitution that all tea related skirmishes should be left unpunished - Are you from Boston?
Answer:
You should "lawyer up"
find a good criminal atty. Technically you began the assault by pouring the tea over her head, until then it was just words, she could have been charged with harassment first.
Yes - Any unwanted touching can be classified as an assault.
yep
lol. Yes it does constitute assualt. But also it constitutes Battery charges. Assualt is the threat to bodily harm (like waving a fist or gun to someone) and battery is the harm itself (like punching or shooting that person).
Yes.Next time let your boyfriend deal with it.
attempted murder
Nowadays you can have charges pressed just by looking at someone wrong... I would maintain that the spill was an accident and you were attacked first...
but that's just me ;)
The physical contact doesn't have to be your body to her body. If you intentionally cause something unwelcome to come into physical contact with her, that's enough. Would you be asking this question if you had thrown a rock at her? Of course not. Just because the iced tea wasn't the most dangerous object doesn't change the fact that you initiated the physical confrontation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a job where you need to have some knowledge of the law. In Canada, where I live, any kind of unwanted physical contact could be considered an assault. Pouring iced tea on someone counts as an assault. If the other girl laid hands on you, in Canada at least, she could also be open to a charge of assault. Since both Canadian and American law have roots in English common law (I'm assuming you're American), the laws regarding assault should be pretty similar.
At this point, the smart thing for you to do is to get the best lawyer you can afford and try and have the charges reduced or dropped. The prosecution might see the situation as a couple of teen-aged girls (I'm assuming you're in your teens; almost everyone on FreeLawAnswer.coms seems to be) acting like idiots and decide to spend their time on better things. Get a lawyer, however. You don't want to mess around with the justice system or get a criminal record. America is particularly punitive when it comes to criminal records.
Yes it is considered assault. To what extent, depends on the judge.
If you are lucky, the judge will think the retaliation was an over reaction from the girl.
Being shoved is being assaulted, but does not give someone the right to shoot them in self defense (or at least would be very difficult to prove it was justified).
If you are lucky, you can possibly consider paying 'restitution' to the girl. Maybe the cost of dry cleaning her clothes, and/or getting her hair done, in exchange for charges dropped.
Obviously talk to a lawyer, even a public defender.
Most likely you'll be charged with battery. Battery is a slightly less offense than assault. If you punch someone that's assault as it can be said you intend to hurt them, pouring ice tea on someone is more like an insult.
You'll probably get a fine and probation, she only mouthed off technically you attacked her.
Assault %26 Battery might be a bit of an extreme verdict, but what you did is SOMETHING. And I'd say you could get hit with that. A lawyer will get it reduced to whatever they can for you.
You realize that it IS something, right? That it's not perfectly OK to be throwing liquids on people--that at the VERY minimum, you're responsible for damage to clothes, etc?
I find it interesting (and a bit sad) how often people allow words to bother them so much...and lead to things like this, or worse. What ever happened to the old saying about "sticks %26 stones?"
...names will never hurt you, but a fine or jail time might.
Please do yourself a favor and get a lawyer.
She didn't attack you, you attacked her by pouring the tea-- changing it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one. Better take the best plea deal thrown your way and hope for the best.
Amercians gained their freedom over a row involving tea - I think it's probably written somewhere in the constitution that all tea related skirmishes should be left unpunished - Are you from Boston?
Does prison work?
OK so I have my own idea about this one! I work in a youth offending team and know the inside story after doing my undergrad dissertation on it. I'm very intesrested to know what others think before I divulge my facts. Please think about costs and community alternatives when you answer :-)
Answer:
Leonard, that is a very short-sighted view. the rate of ex-cons re-offending is very high. Prison SHOULD be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, otherwise we're just hiding the problem temporarily
its 50/50 it works for those who want help. for those that dont, they will re offend as soon as they step out of prison.
As long as they're in there, they're not bothering me. Yes. it works while they are inside.
Sorry but this question is too vague. Does prison work? Work how? Does it keep convicted, dangerous murders away from the rest of us? Yes it does that quite well.
.
Well, over 90% of criminals are repeat offenders. So I say, if you'r going to lock them up, then get rid of this parole crap and getting out on good behavior. If you're in jail, you're in jail. Period.
I believe the damage is done long before the offender is caught and sentenced. Education is the answer. Prison treats the symptom not the cause.
Depends on the prison. If it's nothing but a warehouse to keep people off the streets, then when they get out they'll reoffend. If it has programs set up to deal with the mental processes that got them put there in the first place, as well as programs to give them a way to make a living once they get out, they're effective. In my observation(non-educated), most repeat offenders find prison life easier than street life, although they'd never admit it.
Allegedly YES!. Just ask Dhiren Barot, the dirty bomber. That's if he hasn't already fried!.
I say if you have a person on tape committing a serious crime and the evidence is irrefutable give them hard labor like the used to do to everyone. Put all prisoners on treadmills and let them power the city they are in, in shifts 24/7! Child molestors should never get out, period! And no death penalty for any reason! You can make people wish they were dead though. The government makes plenty of money off prisons or they wouldn't make so many things illegal to keep them at full capacity!
it only works while they the offender is inside it, most people who break the law think they will get away with it.
thats why the death penalty dont work either
Yes, prisons work because they keep bad people out of the general population. They do not work as rehabilitation centers, as most criminals repeat their criminal behavior when they are released. I would like to see our policy towards those who use drugs be changed. It is folly to put these people in prison, we should instead sent them to drug rehab. We should also decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana.
Just recently a USC, in South Carolina, football recruit was arrested for marijuana possession. He was kicked off the team. This is stupid! People should be judged on their performance at their jobs or in the classroom. If they are able to function in our society while using drugs, it should be nobody else's business that they choose to use drugs.
Well, I've spent 3 years in an adult prison, and not as part of the staff. From my perspective, it does a great job of warehousing people. It does a HORRIBLE job of getting them ready to re-enter society. I have a ton of education and experience. I have my BSME from a major ACC university and my MBA, and I have 10 years of professional experience. The problem: I am more qualified (on paper) than 90% of the general public, yet I can't get a job to save my life.
(FYI - I have a non-violent drug charge.)
I think prison is too good these days. But then again I know someone in prison, and would hate for them to have horrible living conditions.
But I think there are different methods that should be used for less serious crimes anyway.
Violent Offenders should be incarcerated for their crimes. Non-violent offenders should be placed in a Community Correctional setting with work release. Bucks County, Pennsylvania was the first county in the United States to implement the work release program. Today it is one of the most successful work release programs in the US. They have to pay 30% rent and 30% restitution and court cost. If they owe child support it comes out of the other 40%, the rest is placed in savings. Guy Waller is the Work Release director and Harris Gubernik is the Director of Corrections for the Bucks County Correctional facility. You should call either one who will be more than happy to give you their insight on your topic.
I think our prison systems are too soft. Heck, most prisons provide better environments for some of these people...
We need to make prison a place no one wants to go. No more luxuries, no more play time.
If you get sent to prison, you work for the government. And I don't care if it's digging holes for no reason. Let's use prison labor to do the jobs that the illegal immigrants are doing, road repair, digging ditches, cleaning up trash, etc. And run it like a well-disciplined military school. This will teach them good work ethics...
If the prisoners are too violent to allow them out, then they get locked in a cell and never get let out. Either behave while working or stay in your cell.
Again, we need a prison system that is a place we all try to avoid.
I think that you are looking for a considered arguement or discussion about the formative or corrective treatment undertaken by the prison system. That is an oft debated topic, and one's point of view may be subject to one's politics.
However, if you consider that there are a lot of violent people committing violent offences, and the public are concerned about being the subjects of violence, then just locking them up does a very great deal of good for the public perception, and we can all sleep easier in our beds as a result of prison, and to that extent it does work.
Sorry to mention this negative aspect of imprisonment.
If we had capital punishment, of course, then we might be able to send fewer people to prison.
Well, that deals with the violent crime, how about the socially deprived that we are hearing about when we question the size of the prison population? Do they need to be there?
Well, perhaps not, but exactly what do you think we should do about anti-social behaviour, and people who really do not want to be a part of a free society, that is to say, one in which we impose common standards of behaviour and respect for the person?
Are they a danger to our society that they need to be locked up?
Or do we just have to accept that their chosen pattern of (mis) behaviour is one that we all have to accept?
If they weren't like Holiday Camps and actually punished offenders then they might work.
Answer:
Leonard, that is a very short-sighted view. the rate of ex-cons re-offending is very high. Prison SHOULD be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, otherwise we're just hiding the problem temporarily
its 50/50 it works for those who want help. for those that dont, they will re offend as soon as they step out of prison.
As long as they're in there, they're not bothering me. Yes. it works while they are inside.
Sorry but this question is too vague. Does prison work? Work how? Does it keep convicted, dangerous murders away from the rest of us? Yes it does that quite well.
.
Well, over 90% of criminals are repeat offenders. So I say, if you'r going to lock them up, then get rid of this parole crap and getting out on good behavior. If you're in jail, you're in jail. Period.
I believe the damage is done long before the offender is caught and sentenced. Education is the answer. Prison treats the symptom not the cause.
Depends on the prison. If it's nothing but a warehouse to keep people off the streets, then when they get out they'll reoffend. If it has programs set up to deal with the mental processes that got them put there in the first place, as well as programs to give them a way to make a living once they get out, they're effective. In my observation(non-educated), most repeat offenders find prison life easier than street life, although they'd never admit it.
Allegedly YES!. Just ask Dhiren Barot, the dirty bomber. That's if he hasn't already fried!.
I say if you have a person on tape committing a serious crime and the evidence is irrefutable give them hard labor like the used to do to everyone. Put all prisoners on treadmills and let them power the city they are in, in shifts 24/7! Child molestors should never get out, period! And no death penalty for any reason! You can make people wish they were dead though. The government makes plenty of money off prisons or they wouldn't make so many things illegal to keep them at full capacity!
it only works while they the offender is inside it, most people who break the law think they will get away with it.
thats why the death penalty dont work either
Yes, prisons work because they keep bad people out of the general population. They do not work as rehabilitation centers, as most criminals repeat their criminal behavior when they are released. I would like to see our policy towards those who use drugs be changed. It is folly to put these people in prison, we should instead sent them to drug rehab. We should also decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana.
Just recently a USC, in South Carolina, football recruit was arrested for marijuana possession. He was kicked off the team. This is stupid! People should be judged on their performance at their jobs or in the classroom. If they are able to function in our society while using drugs, it should be nobody else's business that they choose to use drugs.
Well, I've spent 3 years in an adult prison, and not as part of the staff. From my perspective, it does a great job of warehousing people. It does a HORRIBLE job of getting them ready to re-enter society. I have a ton of education and experience. I have my BSME from a major ACC university and my MBA, and I have 10 years of professional experience. The problem: I am more qualified (on paper) than 90% of the general public, yet I can't get a job to save my life.
(FYI - I have a non-violent drug charge.)
I think prison is too good these days. But then again I know someone in prison, and would hate for them to have horrible living conditions.
But I think there are different methods that should be used for less serious crimes anyway.
Violent Offenders should be incarcerated for their crimes. Non-violent offenders should be placed in a Community Correctional setting with work release. Bucks County, Pennsylvania was the first county in the United States to implement the work release program. Today it is one of the most successful work release programs in the US. They have to pay 30% rent and 30% restitution and court cost. If they owe child support it comes out of the other 40%, the rest is placed in savings. Guy Waller is the Work Release director and Harris Gubernik is the Director of Corrections for the Bucks County Correctional facility. You should call either one who will be more than happy to give you their insight on your topic.
I think our prison systems are too soft. Heck, most prisons provide better environments for some of these people...
We need to make prison a place no one wants to go. No more luxuries, no more play time.
If you get sent to prison, you work for the government. And I don't care if it's digging holes for no reason. Let's use prison labor to do the jobs that the illegal immigrants are doing, road repair, digging ditches, cleaning up trash, etc. And run it like a well-disciplined military school. This will teach them good work ethics...
If the prisoners are too violent to allow them out, then they get locked in a cell and never get let out. Either behave while working or stay in your cell.
Again, we need a prison system that is a place we all try to avoid.
I think that you are looking for a considered arguement or discussion about the formative or corrective treatment undertaken by the prison system. That is an oft debated topic, and one's point of view may be subject to one's politics.
However, if you consider that there are a lot of violent people committing violent offences, and the public are concerned about being the subjects of violence, then just locking them up does a very great deal of good for the public perception, and we can all sleep easier in our beds as a result of prison, and to that extent it does work.
Sorry to mention this negative aspect of imprisonment.
If we had capital punishment, of course, then we might be able to send fewer people to prison.
Well, that deals with the violent crime, how about the socially deprived that we are hearing about when we question the size of the prison population? Do they need to be there?
Well, perhaps not, but exactly what do you think we should do about anti-social behaviour, and people who really do not want to be a part of a free society, that is to say, one in which we impose common standards of behaviour and respect for the person?
Are they a danger to our society that they need to be locked up?
Or do we just have to accept that their chosen pattern of (mis) behaviour is one that we all have to accept?
If they weren't like Holiday Camps and actually punished offenders then they might work.
Does our society need to balance rights with increased responsibility?
Answer:
Increased responsibility!? What society do you live in? I'm pretty sure they took the word "responsibility" out of the dictionary this year (it was replaced with ginormous). Once Hilary is elected they will remove "accountability" and "personal" also.
YES!
Yes. People need to take responsibility for their lives and stop having a victim or entitlement mentality. There are people truly in need, and of course, they deserve help, but you need to be willing to do what it takes to succeed.
no...we're balanced just fine
rights, if they mean anything, are not responsibilities. i have them in virtue of being a person, not in exchange for being a good person who always does what he's told.
if you're referring to the competing interests of public good and individual rights? then again--if rights mean what we talk about them meaning, we can't infringe upon them without being unjust.
given the following thought experiment:
a trolley is on a set of tracks and it loses its brakes. you are standing on a platform, next to an obese man. a person of his size is the only thing that can stop the trolley from certain doom. killing the fat man will save 15 people.
if people have rights, it's wrong to push the fat man. if not? then it's a pure cost/benefit analysis.
so to balance public good against individual freedom, you have to give up on inalienable rights. that would be against the declaration of independence, but hey, it's not like jefferson was perfect.
Does north carolina have a 3 strike rule for felons?
Answer:
3 stike XXX law is a federal law.not a state thingy
I am going to just chime in that I really disagree with the 3 strike rule, its excessive in probably the majority of the instances its used and the Prison system which is paid for by tax payers doesnt need to be overburden more then it already is.
Of course I disagree with the Criminal Justice system, inherently anyway.
Yes, almost every state does, but it's actually called a habitual offender law.
Under the federal Three Strikes rule, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 搂 3559(c), the defendant receives mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
is convicted in federal court of a serious violent felony; and
has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, where at least one of which is a serious violent felony. The other prior offense may be a serious drug offense.
Under the statute, a serious violent felony includes murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, kidnapping, robbery, and any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes as an element the use of force or that, by its nature, involves a significant risk of force. The statute also enumerates certain non-qualifying felonies, including unarmed robbery offenses and arsons that posed no threat to human life.
Unlike the federal laws, the three-strikes laws vary by quite a bit from state to state.
Does mu husband have to work or attend interviews if we claim income support but i claim carers top up for him
Answer:
I have no idea what you are asking. However, the agency that provides your income support is the place to ask your question.
you can go to prison for claiming benifits and working over 16 hours a week and not telling the social
if your husband CAN work, then he SHOULD!
Yes if he is fit.
I care for my budgie and get no benefits at all.
I will report you for claiming carers top up for a mad dog.
If your husband can even contemplate work then why are you receiving income support and carer's allowance? This seems mighty unfair on those of us that work but receive no tax benefits whatsoever. To clarify your situation go to your local Benefit office, normally located somewhere near the town hall and ask them to go through it with you.
Is he disabled, or are you disabled? Is he he claiming Jobseekers Allowance or is he in receipt of Disability Allowance? Has the Department of Pensions and Work said that he no need to seek work.
If he claimed through a Job centre and he has to sign on there every 2 weeks, and did he complete a Jobseekers agreement outlining the steps he would take to find work:
Applying for so many jobs
reading certain publications
attending interviews
writing a CV
and if every time he signs he confirms that he was actively seeking work ?
You can be certain he needs to.
my husband was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2002 we bothed worked full time but then we had to give up work he was a long distance lorry driver me a carer in residential home i had to finish work to care for my husband 24 hours a day he as to have regular medicals and check ups and i believe every one should
I think you should contact your local JobCentre Plus. The best way to do this is to visit their offices directly and talk directly to relevant persons. You should state clearly what the details of the changed circumstances are so that they can advise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)