How confident do you feel? Forum

[CanIScream]

Really didn't mean to start all that. I appreciate all the input.

[happyhour1122]

Alright, how about this one: goal of promoting religious tolerance. Morning prayer in public school of different religions. Right to not participate.

Allowed because secular purpose?
Not allowed because primary effect is to promote religion?
Don't remember the other two choices.

Secular - universally applicable.

Like teaching multiple religions for educational purposes.

Test is primary effect AND purpose to promote religion. Here purpose is to promote tolerance to other dogmas.

Wait what? I thought prayers were just blanketly not allowed in school?

I don't know...
I once saw a question very similar to this one, but even if it had secular purpose, it wasn't the answer because even if the students had options to opt out from the praying time was considered as religious entanglement.

[iOwnBlackacre]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

[virgoyum]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

I remembered fear or intimidation should not be confused with apprehension. So the "scare off" felt like a red herring. I think one of the options was negligent infliction or IIED so I chose IIED. I thought the act was extreme was extreme and outrageous, E.g. shooting a gun in the sky to scare of football players is dumb and extra.com. Recklessness is sufficient for intent. Physical injury is not required for IIED. The more outrageous the act it's lessens proof required for damages. One tip from barbri was IIED is the fallback answer. If there was another tort that would allow the cheerleader to recover you should choose that. I didn't feel that it was the case so I stuck with the IIED analysis. I'm not confident about a thing so here's hoping...

[virgoyum]

Hypothetically speaking: Jack is running away from a vicious dog, Bruno. Jack jumps the fence into Jason's yard. Jason points a gun at him and says: leave or I'll shoot. Jack begs and pleads with Jason, but ultimately decided he'd rather be bitten than shot. Jack jumps back over the fence and low and behold, he's mauled by Bruno.

Jason do anything wrong to a trespasser here? Does the fact that Bruno is not Jason's dog have any effect on the answer?

I think this is still a "can't use deadly force to protect your property" principle.

I agree. Decided it was a breach of duty owed to trespassers. Sloppy way of wording the answer choice though...

Necessity right? So the owner could not exclude him off of the property if the owner knew that the trespasser was in danger.

Yup. Sounds like necessity and you cannot use deadly force to eject too.

This stumped me because of the way the question was worded if I recall. Think question asked if, or who was responsible for Jack's dog bite. Since Jack was running from the dog I thought it hinged on foreseeability and whether Jason's actions was an intervening or superseding cause...Oh well.

[virgoyum]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

Think assault is a lesser included offense so no if that's the full question but for someone reason I'm not sure if that's the whole question.

[PersistentAttorney]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

I remembered fear or intimidation should not be confused with apprehension. So the "scare off" felt like a red herring. I think one of the options was negligent infliction or IIED so I chose IIED. I thought the act was extreme was extreme and outrageous, E.g. shooting a gun in the sky to scare of football players is dumb and extra.com. Recklessness is sufficient for intent. Physical injury is not required for IIED. The more outrageous the act it's lessens proof required for damages. One tip from barbri was IIED is the fallback answer. If there was another tort that would allow the cheerleader to recover you should choose that. I didn't feel that it was the case so I stuck with the IIED analysis. I'm not confident about a thing so here's hoping...

I agree with your reasoning.

[PersistentAttorney]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

Think assault is a lesser included offense so no if that's the full question but for someone reason I'm not sure if that's the whole question.

Its a double jeopardy issue and yes he can be charged with murder because it becomes a different offence when he dies.

[virgoyum]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

Think assault is a lesser included offense so no if that's the full question but for someone reason I'm not sure if that's the whole question.

Its a double jeopardy issue and yes he can be charged with murder because it becomes a different offence when he dies.

That's what it was. I said it was murder. I couldnt what made me choose murder.

[cnk1220]

.

[virgoyum]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

I remembered fear or intimidation should not be confused with apprehension. So the "scare off" felt like a red herring. I think one of the options was negligent infliction or IIED so I chose IIED. I thought the act was extreme was extreme and outrageous, E.g. shooting a gun in the sky to scare of football players is dumb and extra.com. Recklessness is sufficient for intent. Physical injury is not required for IIED. The more outrageous the act it's lessens proof required for damages. One tip from barbri was IIED is the fallback answer. If there was another tort that would allow the cheerleader to recover you should choose that. I didn't feel that it was the case so I stuck with the IIED analysis. I'm not confident about a thing so here's hoping...

I agree with your reasoning.

I don't know if I agree with this. Assault can come from both crim law and torts. Much easier and the "best way" is to make a case for assault with reasonable apprehension of imminent fear/serious injury of bodily harm or attempt to commit a battery. I don't think hypos that need to have an objective best answer would force you to think about whether something meets "severe emotional distress" (ie is it severe enough?) or whether an act is enough for "extreme and outrageous." IIED is a fallback.

yeah I'm not 100% but the way the question is framed is weird. I toggled between nothing, I think that was an option and iied because he did not know someone would be harmed by his actions as he shot at the sky to scare them. I couldn't go with criminal because the answers provided civil causes of actions and I was always told to not assume or overthink even though it's my modus operandi. Again not sure so...

[babylonianprincess]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

Transferred intent can be tricky. Ask yourself whether the contact would have been assault had it been made with the intended target. So the fact that the unintended target wasn't in apprehension is irrelevant. If the contact had caused apprehension in the intended target, you have assault. Now I'm not sure what to rely on as far as what constitutes "apprehension," (several professors state it differently) but imo, the target doesn't necessarily have to actually be scared of the contact. If the target believes D's contact will cause harm and D is able to make such contact, that's enough to establish assault.

[babylonianprincess]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

Transferred intent can be tricky. You have to ask whether the contact would have been assault if it'd been made with the original target. So the unintended target's reaction is irrelevant. If the original target would have been in apprehension, then you have assault and it transfers to the unintended target. As far as what constitutes "apprehension," the target doesn't have to be in actual fear; a subjective belief that D's contact will cause harm and that D is indeed able to make such a contact is enough to establish apprehension.

[virgoyum]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

Transferred intent can be tricky. Ask yourself whether the contact would have been assault had it been made with the intended target. So the fact that the unintended target wasn't in apprehension is irrelevant. If the contact had caused apprehension in the intended target, you have assault. Now I'm not sure what to rely on as far as what constitutes "apprehension," (several professors state it differently) but imo, the target doesn't necessarily have to actually be scared of the contact. If the target believes D's contact will cause harm and D is able to make such contact, that's enough to establish assault.

Yeah that's why I didn't even get to assault with the cheerleader. I focused on the football players and jack's intent to scare, not harm. Transferred intent is probably right but maybe I over thought. I know apparent ability to commit a battery is enough to cause apprehension, but because he had a deadly weapon and there was no "aggravated" battery or assault anywhere I didn't go that route. Long siiiiiiiiigh. I need to just step away from the forums. It's going to be a long month.

[babylonianprincess]

for me, i think more experimentals or "distractors" appeared in the PM session. there were a couple that either had two right answers or no right answer at all. btw, as a hypothetical

jack wants to act bad ass and tries to scare off some high school jocks, approaches a group of them one day on the football field, takes out a glock from his backpack and shoots one in the sky. a cheerleader nearby hears it, gets scared and pissed off but does not suffer any physical harm from it. between assault and IIED, what's the best way the cheerleader can get back at jack for being a jack ass?

a few people have said assault so they are probably right. but hypothetically, was the cheerleader ever actually in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact? was she ever actually in fear? she was startled, but by the time she was aware of it, the bullet and threat was gone. is that enough apprehension to qualify as assault?

Transferred intent can be tricky. Ask yourself whether the contact would have been assault had it been made with the intended target. So the fact that the unintended target wasn't in apprehension is irrelevant. If the contact had caused apprehension in the intended target, you have assault. Now I'm not sure what to rely on as far as what constitutes "apprehension," (several professors state it differently) but imo, the target doesn't necessarily have to actually be scared of the contact. If the target believes D's contact will cause harm and D is able to make such contact, that's enough to establish assault.

Yeah that's why I didn't even get to assault with the cheerleader. I focused on the football players and jack's intent to scare, not harm. Transferred intent is probably right but maybe I over thought. I know apparent ability to commit a battery is enough to cause apprehension, but because he had a deadly weapon and there was no "aggravated" battery or assault anywhere I didn't go that route. Long siiiiiiiiigh. I need to just step away from the forums. It's going to be a long month.

It can go either way. Using a deadly weapon to scare is an easy way to establish apprehension. I can't remember the wording of a similar practice hypo but the answer depends on whether the players D pointing the weapon at them (automatic apprehension imo). There's almost never a clear answer. Dont stress yourself too much.. though it's nearly impossible to stay away from the forums =/

[virgoyum]

Total space cadet with respect to the dog bite. It was right in my notes (re: necessity and privilege) and instead I let my ENFP roam unfetterred and free

[happyhour1122]

I know this is normal- but I'm doubting myself. I think I failed now.

[yankeeman86]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

Think assault is a lesser included offense so no if that's the full question but for someone reason I'm not sure if that's the whole question.

Its a double jeopardy issue and yes he can be charged with murder because it becomes a different offence when he dies.

correct me if im wrong...based on the above hypo, it would not be a DJ problem so the guy will get charged with murder because it TECHNICALLY IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE? if the guy stabbed him or shot him, bartender doesn't die, but later does, then yes because assault with a deadly weapon is a lesser included offense of murder. however, if the bartender lets say just hits him, even with a beer bottle, then no it is not a lesser included offense. my question is whether the patron shot him/stabbed him or just hit him without a deadly weapon...?

[cal_pushed]

Hypo: guy gets in a fight with bartender. Bartender is in hospital, guy gets charged with assault, acquitted. Bartender dies a week later. Can guy get charged with murder? Why/why not.

Think assault is a lesser included offense so no if that's the full question but for someone reason I'm not sure if that's the whole question.

Its a double jeopardy issue and yes he can be charged with murder because it becomes a different offence when he dies.

correct me if im wrong...based on the above hypo, it would not be a DJ problem so the guy will get charged with murder because it TECHNICALLY IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE? if the guy stabbed him or shot him, bartender doesn't die, but later does, then yes because assault with a deadly weapon is a lesser included offense of murder. however, if the bartender lets say just hits him, even with a beer bottle, then no it is not a lesser included offense. my question is whether the patron shot him/stabbed him or just hit him without a deadly weapon...?

Agreed. Happens all the time. Guy convicted of assault, not aggravated assault and then Vic subsequently died. Charge with murder contains elements assault does not, /'s assault contains elements murder does not. No DJ.

[reasonableperson]

Transferred intent DOES NOT apply to IIED. That's a rule.

[virgoyum]

Transferred intent DOES NOT apply to IIED. That's a rule.

I didn't use transferred intent to apply IIED. I didn't think of it as assault and went straight to an analysis of the fact pattern under IIED but ita a fallback provision. Those that analyzee under transferred intent chose assault.

[cal_pushed]

Transferred intent DOES NOT apply to IIED. That's a rule.

I didn't use transferred intent to apply IIED. I didn't think of it as assault and went straight to an analysis of the fact pattern under IIED but ita a fallback provision. Those that analyzee under transferred intent chose assault.

Assault most amenable to proof on the basis of damages. IIED requires damages. Facts hazy on damages, but clear for purposes of apprehension for assault. That's why assault most probable under the facts.

[virgoyum]

Transferred intent DOES NOT apply to IIED. That's a rule.

I didn't use transferred intent to apply IIED. I didn't think of it as assault and went straight to an analysis of the fact pattern under IIED but ita a fallback provision. Those that analyzee under transferred intent chose assault.

Assault most amenable to proof on the basis of damages. IIED requires damages. Facts hazy on damages, but clear for purposes of apprehension for assault. That's why assault most probable under the facts.

proof of damages requires lessens the more outrageous the conduct ... Anyways I already said assault is likely it

[virgoyum]

I know this is normal- but I'm doubting myself. I think I failed now.

Been panicking myself as well... That's why I'm torturing myself here

[seeyouatthenextexam]

I know this is normal- but I'm doubting myself. I think I failed now.

Been panicking myself as well... That's why I'm torturing myself here

Again, same. We need a support group!

I grew out of my drinking phase years ago but this waiting may bring that phase back.