Essay About Last Important Concept And Tort Law

Tort Law and AmendmentsEssay Preview: Tort Law and AmendmentsReport this essay[pic 1]Tort Law and AmendmentsBy Charlene Villalvazo9/27/2018        This week was all about tort law and for me the concept that I was taught was basically anything that a person feels they were made either harmed, stressed, sad, depressed about they can sue based on the tort laws. There are however, good ones in there like “Defamation”, “false imprisonment” “battery and assault”, “fraud” and a couple others. The one that stood out most to me was “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” I liked this one because in my opinion its stating that if someone was given false hopes about if they would do a certain act they were going to be either repaid or happier. I don’t think that people should be so naïve in believing everything that people say. If someone asks for you to get information from your employer which should be kept confidential, I’m sure it has to cross your mind “is this ethical?” If an action that could put you at risk then research more about it.

I also liked chapter 6 where it includes a lot about the amendments. I was surprised in seeing how the amendments protect the people so much. For example there is the fourth amendment, “Gathering Evidence” which protects citizens against police or detectives from entering or taking things without a Warrant unless there is immediate need. Then there is “Exclusionary Rule” which prohibits evidence that the government found illegally to be used in a case.  I didn’t know too much about felonies and misdemeanors, all I knew was that they are bad but now I learned about each one. The last important concept that I liked was the fifth- amendment: “Self Incrimination”. There are many cases that I’m sure don’t make it to court or are mentioned in a case about government forcing a person to provide evidence against himself. Well, first of all why would anyone do that willingly unless being threatened or harmed to do so?

Trial Law Protects Citizens – Article 7 of the American Bar Association’s Constitution and Human Rights Watch.

In cases where citizens do not have a warrant because they are being threatened, they do not have the right to an attorney or an attorney’s brief, they do not be bound by an obligation to respond to any specific complaint and they have the right to a lawyer in the event of an incident like this. However, there are many cases where the right to respond to an officer who is acting on his or her own should be protected by a law requiring all citizens to be accompanied by an attorney, where an individual has a civil rights case pending against the city, where there is an ongoing criminal investigation (indictment, etc.), or where the government is trying to put some element of a suspect in jail or imprisoned, in the event it wishes for an investigation so that he or she can go through the courts to obtain the information himself. Therefore, law-abiding citizens should be able to petition the court over their constitutional rights and may even be legally able to sue. If they have not applied themselves the proper process or information from an attorney would help clarify some of this confusion.

In cases where citizens do not have a warrant because they are being threatened, they do not have the right to an attorney or an attorney’s brief, they do not be bound by an obligation to respond to any specific complaint and they have the right to a lawyer in the event of an incident like this. However, there are many cases where the right to respond to an officer who is acting on his or her own should be protected by a law requiring all citizens to be accompanied by an attorney, where an individual has a civil rights case pending against the city, where there is an ongoing criminal investigation (indictment, etc.), or where the government is trying to put some element of (indictment, etc.), in the event it wishes for an investigation so that he or she can go through the courts to obtain the information himself. Therefore, law-abiding citizens should be able to petition the court over their constitutional rights and may even be legally able to sue. If they have not applied themselves the proper process or information from an attorney would help clarify some of this confusion.

In cases where citizens do not have a warrant because they are being threatened, they do not have the right to an attorney or an attorney’s brief, they do not be bound by an obligation to respond to any specific complaint or a request for an attorney. Since in this case, the government wants the person for whom they have a civil rights situation to be in the custody of